ministred in his remembrance Ergo he is come c. As for the taking downe of the Altars it was done upon just consideracions for that they seemed to come to nigh to the Jewes usage Neither was the Supper of the Lord at any time more better ministred more duely received then in these later dayes when all things were brought to the rites and usage of the Primitive Church Lincolne A goodly receiving I promise yow to set an Oyster Table in steed of an Altar and to come from puddings at Westminister to receive and yet when your Table was constituted yow could never be content in placing the same now East now North now one way now another untill it pleased God of his goodnes to place it cleane out of the Church Ridley your Lordships unreverent termes doe not elevate the thing c. To this speech of Bishop White M. Fox affixeth this marginall Censure Bishop White blasphemously calleth the board of the Lords Table An Oyster Table Which just Censure the Coale from the Altar most injuriously turnes upon M. Prynne for calling the Lords Table a Drester A slovenly and scornefull terme deserving no other Answer then what the marginall Notes in the Acts Monuments give in the one place to the Deane of Westminster or in the other to the Bishop of Lincolne D. White And truly had the Gentleman in the place pretended expresly termed the Lords Table a Dresser as these two nickenamed it An Oister board or Oyster Table I should have passed thus verdict upon him that he was Nigâ—o CARBONE notandus defamedly marked with this blacke Coale But examining his words finding them to be misreported to lay a causeles blemish on him I must needs conclude that the namcelesse Preist or Colier who hath fastned this scandall on him is as blacke shameles as his Coale For he never termes the Lords Table a Dresser but only Censures such who against the Rubricke for the Communion Queen Elizabeths Injunctions and the Canons An. 1571. not 1471. as himselfe mistakes whiles he blames him for mistaking p. 18. which is no mistake the English Coppy which he no question saw and followed printed the same yeare with the Latine which is p. 15. warranting the quotation true both in regard of Page words what ever the Coale either ignorantly or maliciously spatters out to the contrary at the administration of the Sacrament place the Communion Table Altarwise with one side against the wall more like a Side-Table Cupbard or Dresser then a Lords Table to eat and drinke at Like or more Like a Dresser or Sideboard then a Table is all he writes wherein he is as farre from blasphemie or calling the Lords Table a Dresser as the Scripture itselfe is from blasphemie or terming Christ a thâ—â—fe when it sayth Matth. 24. 4â— 1. Thess. 5. 4. 2. Pet. 3. 10. Rev. 3. 3. c. 16. 15. that Christ the day of the Lord shall come as or like a Thiefe in the night the comparisons similitudes being both apt the one in regard of the maner of the Tables situation the other in respect of the sodaine fearfull unexpectednes of Christs second comming to Judgment though the name of a Dresser unfit to be imposed on the Lords Table of a theife upon our Saviour By which slovenly terme M. Prynne is so farre from calling the Communion Table that he phraseth it A religious implement of Gods owne appointment But to returne againe to that from which this false Calumnie in the Coale hath diverted me This our famous learned Martyr Bishop Ridley not long after this his Conference to shew how eagerly the Popish Prelates were bent to remove Communion Tables set up Altars in their steeds how much he detested this their practise in his excellent Farwell to his friends in generall breakes forth into these patheticke words Othou now wicked and bloody Sea why dost thou now set up againe many Altars of Idolatrie which by the word of God were justly taken away Why hast thou overthrowne the Lords Table Why dost thow dayly delude thy people masking in thy Masses in steed of the Lords Supper The Papists in their discourses with our stout learned Martyr M. John Philpot were as hote as a Coale for Altars the Sacrament of the Altare For in his 11. examination on S. Andrewes day 1555. Christopherson who reasoned with him demaunded whether S. Augustine did not call the Sacrament the Sacrament of the Altar To which M. Philpot replied That maketh nothing for the probation of your Sacrament For so he and other ancient writers doe call the Holy Communion of the Supper of the Lord in respect that it is the Sacrament of the Sacrifice which Christ offred upon the Altar of the Crosse the with Sacrifice all the Altaâ—s and Sacrifices done upon the Altars in the old Law did prefigure and shadow the with pertaineth nothing in your Sacrament hanging upon your Altars of Lime and Stone Christopherson No doth I pray yow what signifieth Altar Philpot. Not as yow falsely take it materially but for the Sacrifice of the Altar of the Crosse. Christopherson Where find yow it ever so taken Philpot. O yes that I doe in S. Paul to the Heb. 13. where he sayth We have an Altar of which it is not lawfull for them to eate that serve the Tabernacle Is not Altar there taken for the Sacrifice of the Altar and not for the Altar of Lime and Stone Christopherson Well God blesse me out of your company yow are such an oâ— stinate heretike that I never heard the like Philpot. I pray God keep me from such blind Doctors which when they are not able to prove what they say then they fall to blaspheming as yow doe for want of better proofe In the CoÌ„ference between Archbishop Crammer and D. Martyn March 155â— Martyn speakes thus to Crammer in defence of Masse Altars which he couples both togeather If yow marke the Devills language well it agreeth with your proceedings most truly For cast thy selfe downeward sayd he and so taught yow to cast all things downe wardes Downe with the Sacrament downe with the Masse downe with the Altars c. In Cardinall Pooles visitation at Cambridge January 1557. his Deputy Visitors sett forth certaine Statutes whereby they would have the university hereafter ordered wherein among other things they prescribed at how many Masses every man should be day by day and in what sort every man in his entrance into the Church should bow himselfe to the Altar a ceremonie superstition and Idolatrie now taken up by many contrary to or without all Scriptures Law and Canon though thus enjoyned by borrowed from the Papists whose superstitious toyes are now much imitated and adored In Aprill the same yeare Cardinall Poole in his ordinary Visitation Articles with in his Diocesse of Canterbury Article 18. 23. concerning the people inquired whether the Altars in the
revealed That Crucifixes and Images in Churches are Lawfull and necessary comly Ornaments That Christ is Really present upon Earth on the High-Altar and Communion-Table That Communion-Tables are Altars Ministers of the Gospell Priests serving at the Altar The Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar and may yea ought so to be phrased That men ought to bow to Altars and Communion-Tables and to place and Rayle them in Altar-wise at the East end of the Church and come up to them and receive when there is a Sacrament And that Ministers must read their Second Service at them when there is none That auricular Confession to a Priest and Absolution are very fitting and necessary points much insisted on and pressed at this present when Cleargie-mens sinnes are so open and notorious that they need no Confession but correction rather That the Lords-day is no Sabbath That it is Iewish to call or keep it as a Sabbath That it is not of divine but humane Institution nor within the morality of the fourth Commaundement That two howers only of it are to be sanctified nor the whole day That Morrises Dancing Sports and Pastimes yea labours of mens calling not specially prohibited by some humane Lawes even out of cases of necessity are Lawfull on it That men may fall totally and finally from Grace That they have free-will and may exactly fulfill the Law of God if they please themselves That men are justified by workes yea by charity and not by faith alone That men are Elected from the foresight of faith and workes and Reprobated only out of the foresight of their sinnes That there is an universall grace given to all men whereby they may be saved if they will That Christ died alike for all men wha soaver That preaching is an extraordinary thing necessary only for extraordinary times and belonging to none but extraordinary men That one Sermon in a Month is enough and better then two a day That reading is properly preaching That Arch-Bishops and Bishops Episcopall Iurisdiction and degree is above other Ministers Iure divino That the Ministers know more then the Lay-people the Bishops more then the Ministers the Arch-Bishops more then the Bishops And therefore what ever the Ministers shall teach or prescribe the people what ever the Bishops the Ministers and people what ever the Arch-Bishops the Bishops Ministers and people too are bound to believe and obey without further question or dispute That the Popes Lawes Decrees and Canon-Law are still in force and our Church ought to be governed by them and our Ecclesiasticall Courts proceed Legally according to them That Bishops have power to make and publish Articles Canons Injunctions Oathes Orders Rites Ceremonies in their owne names and rights and to enforce both Ministers and people to obey them That they may silence suspend and excommunicate yea deprive and imprison Ministers at their pleasure without any Legall cause That Bishops are not bound to preach so much or so oft as other men though they have greater wages and so should doe more worke That they may Lawfully and laudablie neglect their spirituall functions to mannage temporall Offices and affaires exercise both Swords at once and rule both Church and State together When I see out owne Divines if we may believe them by publike License in printed Bookes defending all these with sundrie other erronious Romish Positions maintaining all Popish Ceremonies conforming themselves to Popish Masse-Priests in their noddes cringes genuflections habits preaching writing Ceremonies And joyning thus with them in a most treacherous confederacie against the established Doctrine Discipline of the Church of England as many late Writers and by Name Bishop Mountague Bishop White Edmond Reene Dr. Pocklington Dr. Heylyn Dr. Primerose Dr. Laurence Dr. Read Mr. Shelford Mr. Chowne Mr. Studly with others in their late printed Bookes Bishop Wren and other our Prelates in their Visitation Articles and hundreds in their unprinted Sermons both in the Court City Uniuersitie and Country have done When I behold our Lords Tables euery where called and turned into Altars or rayled Altar-wise Our Ministers transformed into Priests and so stiled Our Religion Metamorphosed into externall Popish Pompe and Ceremonies Our Devotion into Superstition Our Holines into professed prophanesse Our godnes into impiory Our Preaching into Piping and Dauncing Our Lords dayes into Play-dayes Our Conscience into unconscioâ— ablenes Our feare of God into Atheisme Our Bishops for the most part into Bite-shrepes Our Ecclestasticall High Commisioners into Spanish Inquisitours and meere Tyrants Our Pastors into Wolves Our Religious Fasting even in this time of Plague and danger into Feasting Our devout Prayers into carnall lollity Our Profession of Religion into Derision and Gods Word yea Heaven and Hell into a Fable And that principally by meanes of some 〈◊〉 Authorized Bookes in print which no man can have free liberty to answer this being one grand Policy of our Popish Innovatours to ingrosse the power and commaund of all our printing Presses into their owne hands and to stay whatever may either detect or crosse their Antichristian Romish designes When I behold all this I say even with a bleeding heart and troubled spirit how can I but unloose my hitherto silent tongue and penne and cry out aloud that all may heare to these open Powder Traytours who would blow up our Religion and our Church at once O men doe not thus murther and destroy the Church of England Now because I cannot at once encounter all those who are guilty of this unnaturall Treachery nor crush all these viperous Cockatrices in the shell I have here single out some three or foure of them to combate with especially the Authour of A Coale from the Altar intiteled A Iudicious Learned Divine Whose Coale set on fire by Mr. Samuell Baker in the Bishops of Londons Open hath kindled a new Combustion every-where in our Church concerning Altars the Sacrament of the Altar the â—â—â—â—swing of the Communion Table an Altar and the placing of it Altar-wise with one side against the Wall as the East end of the Church VVhich they have earnestly pleaded for in late printed Bookes in open affront and defiance to our Statuâ—es Articles of Religion Booke of Common-Prayer Injunctions Canons Martyrs and most Eminent Writers Which particulars though they seeme small at first view and are slighted by many as matters of no great moment yet all Circumstances considered they are very important and the conniving at them without Opposition like to prove fatall to our Religion as the Reading of the Treatise itselfe will evidence more at large To make this apparant in few words There is no man almost so ignorant as not to know So blinde as not to see that there is a strong faction sprung up of late among us the heades whereof were particularly voted and descried in Parliament-House the last Parliament who labour with all diligence power and cunning artifice to bring the whole body of Popery
restored In the yeare of the Lord 1549. as M. John Fox in his Acts and Monuments London 1610. p. 1211. 1212. Records Kinge Edward the 6. with 9. of his Privy Councell whereof Archbishop Cramner and Thomas Bishop of Ely where two writt a letter to Nicholas Ridley Bishop of London to give substantiall Order throughout all his Dioces that with all diligence all the Altars in every Church and Chappell with in his Dioces bee taken downe and in steed of them a Table to bee sett up in some convenient part of the Chancell with in every such Church or Chappell to serve for the administration of the blessed Communion sendinge with this letter 6. reasons why the Lords board shoulde rather bee after the forme of a Table then of an Altar After with letter and Reasons received the Bishop appointed the forme of a Right Table to bee used in his Dioces and in the Church of Paules brake downe the wall standinge by the high Altars side placinge the Table a good distance from the wall M. Martin Bucer in his Censure of the Common prayer booke of the Church of England in his scripto Anglicano p. 457. writes That it appeares by the formes of the most auncient Temples and writings of the Fathers that the Clergie stood in the midst of the Temples which were for the most parte round And out of that place did soe administer the Sacraments to the people that they might plainely heare the things that were there recited and be understood of all that were present And hee there condemnes the placinge of the Quire soe remote from the bodie of the Church and administringe distinct service Sacraments therin as contrary to Christs Institution and an intolerable contumely to God exhortinge Kinge Edward and the Archbishop severely to Correct the same Shortly after which Censure of his the Altars were taken downe and Communion Tables placed in the bodie of the Church or Chancell in their steed * Bishop Farrar causinge a Communion Table for the administration of the Lords supper March 30. 1555. to bee sett up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CHURCH of Carmarthen without the Quire takinge awaye the Altar thence The MIDDEST of the Church beinge then thought the fittest place for its situation Incomparable Bishop Jewell * one of Queene Elizabeths visitors in the first yeare of her Raigne whoe had a hand in turninge the Altars into Communion Tables and placinge these Tables in the middest of the Church or Chancell if not incomposinge the Rubricks in the Communion booke in his answeare to Hardings Preface writes thus An Altar wee have such as Christ and his Apostles and other Holy Fathers had which of the Greekes was called the Holy Table And of the Latines the Table of the Lord and was made not of Stone but of Timber and stood not at the end of the Quire BUT IN THE MIDDEST OF THE PEOPLE as many wayes it maye appeare And other or better Altar then Christ or these Holy Fathers had wee desire to have none And in his Reply to Hardinge Article 3. Divis. 26. Hee proceeds thus Nowe whether it maye seeme likely that the same Altars stood soe farr of from the hearinge of the people as M. Hardinge soe constantly affirmeth I referr my selfe to these authorities that here followe Eusebius thus describeth the forme and furniture of the Church in his tyme. The Church being ended comely furniture with high Thrones for the honour of the Rulers and wish stalles beneath sett in order And last of all the holie of holies I meane the Altar BEING PLACED IN THE MIDDEST Eusebius sayth not the Altar was sett at the end of the Quire but IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH AMONGE THE PEOPLE S. Augustinus likewise sayeth thus Christ feedeth us dayly and this is his Table here sett IN THE MIDDEST O my hearers what is the matter that yee see the Table and yet come not to the meate In the 5. Councill of Constantinople it is written thus When the Lessen or Chapter was readinge the people with silence drâ—ve togeather ROUND ABOUT THE ALTAR and gave care Yet D. Pocklington writes that they are much mistaken that produce the Councell of Constantinople to prove that Communion Tables stood in the midst of the Church and the Coale from the Altar sayth the like And to leave others Durandus examininge the cause why the Preist turneth himselfe about at the Altar yeildeth this reason for the same In the MIDDEST OF THE CHURCH I opened my mouth And Platina noteth that Bonifacius Bishop of Rome was the first that in the time of the ministration divided the Preist from the people To leave further Allegations that the Quire was then in the body of the Church divided with railes from the rest whereof it was called Cancell or Chancell c. And whereas M. Hardinge imagineth that the people for distance of place could not heare what the Preist sayd A man that hath considered the old Fathers with any diligence may soone see hee is farre deceived For Chrisostome sayth The deacon at the holy Misteries stood up and thus spake unto the people Oremus pariter omnes let us all praye together And againe hee sayth the Preist and people at the ministration talke togeather The Preist sayth the Lord bee with you the people answeareth And with thy spirit Justinian the Emperour commanded that the Preist should soe speake a lowde at the holy Ministration as the people might heare him And to leave rehearsall of others Bessarion sayth the Preist speakinge these words the people standinge by at each part of the Sacrament or on every side sayth Amen After which hee concludes thus Seeinge therefore that neither Altars were erected in the Apostles time nor the Communion Table that then was used stood soe farr off from the body of the Church nor the people gave ascent to that they understood not soe many untruthes beinge found in M. Hardings premises all which are revived afresh in the Coale from the Altar to affront Bishop Iewell and justifie M. Hardinge and that by publique license such is the desperate shamelessenes and Apostacie of our age wee maye well and safely stand in doubt of his Conclusion And in the margin hee hath this note annexed to M. Hardings words The. 82. un truth The Altars and Communion Tables STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH as shall appeare And Article 13. division 6. p 362. hee cites the same passages of Eusebius Augustine and the Councell of Constantinople to prove that there was aunciently but one Altar and Communiâ—n Table in every Church and that standinge in the middest of the Church Quire people and concludes thus Soe likewise Gentianus Hernettus describinge the manner of the Greeke Church as it is used at this daye sayth thus In the Greeke Church there is but one Altar and the same standinge IN THE MIDDEST OF THE QVIRE and the Quire alsoe was in the
27. yee shall knowe that I am in the MIDST of Israell Zeph. 3. 5. 15. 17. yee have polluted the Sanctuarie the Lord is in the MIDST thereof The Kinge of Israell even the midst of thee The Lord thy God in the MIDST of thee is mightie Zech. 2. 5. For I sayth the Lord will bee the glorie in the MIDST of her Math. 18. 2â— Where two or three are gathered togeather in my name there am I in the MIDST of them Luke 2. 46. Christs Parents found him in the Temple sittinge in the MIDST of the Doctors John 20. 19. when our Saviour appeared to his Disciples after his resurrection hee came and stood in the MIDST of them and sayde Peace bee unto you Rev. 1. 13 and 2. 1. The sonne of man is sayde to bee to walke in the MIDST of the 7. golden Candlesticks which are there interpreted to bee the 7. Churches Rev. 5. 6. Christ the Lambe is sayde to stand in the MIDST of the Throne and in the MIDST of the Elders Soe Exod. 3. 4. God called to Moses out of the MIDST of the burninge bush a type of the Church Soe hee spake to Moses out of the MIDST of the Clowd Exod. 24. 16. And tells the Isralites that hee dwells in the MIDST of their Campe. Numb 5. 3. The Lord spake unto you out of the MIDST of the fire Deue. 4. 12. And they heard his voyce out of the MIDST of darkenes and of fire too Deut. 5. 22. 23. The Prophet Esay c. 12. v. 6. writes thus Crie out and shoute thou Inhabitant of Zion for greate is the holye one of Israell in the MIDST of thee By all which texts it is evident That God and Christ are sayde to bee principally present in the MIDST of the Temple congregation people whereas there is not so much as one place throughout the Scripture that sayth they are specially present at the Temple Congregation people The Communion Table therefore beinge Christ mercie seate the place of our Saviours speciall presence upon Earth and his Chaire of Estate as Giles Widdowes Shelford Reeves other Novellers dogmatize ought to bee placed in the middest of the people Church and Congregation where these Scriptures joyntly affirme that God and Christ are more immediately specially present if they bee more in one place of the Church and Temple then another as they saye hee is 9. Add to this that the Apostle sayth Our bodies are the Temples of Christ and the holy Ghost 1. Cor. 3. 16. 17. c. 6. 19. 2. Cor. 6. 16. And where doe both of them principally dwell with in these Temples but in the heart seated in the midst of the bodie Gall. 4. 6. Eph. 3. 17. So also doe they principally dwell and manifest themselves in the midst of our Materiall Temples and Congregations Therefore for this and the precedent reasons our Communion Tables ought to bee scituated in the midst of our Churches or Quires as they have been in auncient tymes where our Injunctâ—ons Canons writers Communion booke and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. confirminge the same prescribe that they shoulde stand at least wise when the Sacrament is administred 10. The Altar of Incense and the shewbreade table stood not in the Quire or Sanctum Sanctorum but in the midst of the Sanctuarie or bodie of the Temple as the premises Evidence and Godwyn in his Jewish Antiquities l. 2. c. 1. p. 78. 79. records Nowe these beinge in some sorte tipes of the Communion Tible intimate which the Fathers sometimes have an Altar improperly in relation to them that it shoulde be scituated in such manner as these were Havinge thus produced these unanswearable reasons for the placinge of the Communion Table in the midst of the Church or Chancell specially at the Sacraments administration I come nowe in the 6. place to examine those reasons which are or can bee alleaged by our Novellers for placinge Communion Tables Altarwise against the East end wall of the Quire of Chauncell The first reason alleaged by them is this The high Altar or Lords Table sayth dotinge M. Robert Shelford Preist in his Sermon of Gods house Cambridge 635. p. 17. 18. usually standeth at the East end of Gods house Idque propter Christum c. and that because of Christ wheâ— is called the light of the worlde and ORIENS to with the branch Zeph. 6. 12. and is likewise expected to come from the East Math. 24. 27. which put into an argument is this Christ is called the light of the vvorld the BRANCH and as some men thinke shall come to Iudgment from the East Therefore the Communion Table high Altar ought to stand Altarvvise against the East end of the Church What frentique Bedlam logicke divinitie is this what Consequence or Coherence in this argumentation Is not this farr worse then that of Durandus other Pâ—pists Christ is called a Rocke and a Corner stone 1. Cor. 10. 4. Ergo Altars and Lords Tables must bee made only of stone To whicht I might vetorâ— from this text of Zech. 6. 12. Christ is calâ—ed the branch Therefore Altars and Lords Tables ought to bee made only of wood not stone Christ beinge else where called a vyne Tree of life c. more probable inference then this M. Shelford deduceth from it Therefore high Altars and Communion Tables ought to stand Altarwise against the East end of the Church since it is warranted by the practice of the Primitive Church whose Communion Tables and Altars were made only of wood not stone as Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington prove at large out of Augustine Optatus Chrysostome Athanasius and others as our Communion Tables are and ought to bee by the direct prescript of the booke of Common prayer which calls it Gods BOARD the Homily of the worthy receivinge of the Sacrament Queene Elizabeths Injunctions at the end Kinge Edward the 6. and his Privy Councills letter and 6. reasons Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. 1212. Canons 1571. p. 18. Canons 1603. Can. 20. 21. 82. Arbishop Parkers visitation Articles Art 2. Doctor Fulke notes on the Remish Testament on Math. 23. sect 7. on Heb. 13. sect 6. on Apoc. 6. sect 2. Answeare to Martyn c. 17. sect 15. 16. 17. Doctor John Reynolds conference with Hart. p. 462. 477. 478. to 524. Bishop Morton his Protestants appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 146. Doctor Willet Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall Controversie qu. 6. part 2. Error 55. p. 498. Bishop Jewell and Bishop Babington in the places quoted in the Margin Bishop Farrar Fox Acts and Monuments Artic. 20. p. 1404 1406. Bishop Ridley in his last examination Fox ibidem p. 1601. 1602. And his farewell to his frends in generall Ibidem p. 1610. compared with p. 1211. 1212. Though some turne them nowe adayes into Altars made of stone But to come to a more particular examination of this part of this argument First hee
Prelates thenâ— more honored M. Calvin and his judgment then many of them and of our Clergie doe now who make it a cheife part of their superstitioâ— zeale to revile and traduce him both in their writings and Sermons all they may without any just or lawfull cause adorning Bellarmine Baronius and the Popish Schoolemen with the most magnifying Honorable Tules they can invent to vilefy him the more and humor the Catholike faction And that this is but forgery will appeare not by the forementioned Letter of King Edward and his Counsell to Bishop Ridly That the Altars in most part of the Churches of the Realme were already taken downe not to please M. Calvin but upon GOOD AND GODLY CONSIDERATIONS so no doubt the name of Altar exploded out of the Common prayer Booke and Homilies upon the selfe same good and godly Considerations but likewise by the 1. and 3. Parts of the excellent Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie wherein Altars are expresly condemned as heathenish Idolatrous and Popish the Homily also shewing at large that Godly Kings in all ages brake them downe and Idolatrous Princes and people only set them up contrary to Gods commaund who threatens to punish and destroy the people that so sett up or suffer Altars Images and Idolls undestroyed and to breake downe and destroy their Altars and Images recording That all Christians in the primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also and Arnobius testify were fore charged and complained on by the Gentiles that they had no Altars nor Images From whence it is evident that they tooke them to be unlawfull in the Church or Temple of God and therfore had none whence the second part of the Hom. of the Time and place of Prayer calls the Images and Altars of Christians in those and our dayes HEATHENISH JEWISH ABUSES which provoke the displeasure and indignation of Almighty God and prophane and defile their Churches and grosly abuse yea filthily defile the Lords holy Supper with infinite toyes and trifles of mens owne popish devises to make a goodly shew and to deface the plaine simple syncere Religion of Christ Jesus yet our Prelates against these Homilies and the Communion Booke which they subscribe to and force others likewise to subscribe unto yea contrary to their Oath and solemne profession when they were ordained Ministers and consecrated Bishops set themselves now tooth and nayle to turne Communion Tables into Altars terme them by this name both in their visitation Articles Sermons and printed Bookes as the Papists and Popish Prelates did in Queen Maryes dayes who upon the change of Religion setting up of Popery made this their first worke to remove Communion Tables to erect Altars every where without which they could have no Masses nor Masse-Preists and to preach against 〈◊〉 scosse at Communion Tables and extoll Altars as our Prelates and their Popish instruments now doe whose Practises ends too no doubt are the same with these in former times which I shall take a little Liberty to relate both to informe the Reader lay open that Mystery of iniquity now intended by turning of our Lords Tables into Altars M. Fox our learned Ecclesiasticall Historian who not only writes the History of Queen Maries dayes but lived in those times records that in the first yeare of Queen Marye as soone as she came to the Crowne and before any Law made for that purpose many men just as too many Bishops Ministers are now were to forward in erecting of Altars and Masses the inseperable companions of them in Churches That D. Weston preâ—ching at Paules Crosse the 20. of October the same yeare to wt 1553. named the Lords Table an Oister-borde to which M. Fox addeth this marginall Note The blasphemous mouth of D. Weston calling the Lords Table an Oister-board That the Archdeacons Officiall visiting at Hynton the 28. of November following gave in charge to present all such as did disturbe the Queenes proceedings in letting the setting up of their Altars and saying of Masse or any part thereof The 24. of October the same yeare one Act was made to punish such who should willingly or of purpose molest lett disturbe or otherwise trouble any Parson Vicar Parish Preist or Curate preparing saying singing ministring or celebrating the Masse or unlawfully contemptuously maliciously of their owne power or authority pull downe deface spoile or otherwise breake any Altar or Altars or any Crucifix or Crosse that then was or after that should be in any Church Câ—apple or Church-yard which was seconded by the Queenes Proclamation the 15. day of December following Upon the 2. of December 155â— Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Wincâ—ester and Lord Chaunsellour preached at Pauls Crosse before King Philip Cardinall Poole and other Peeres where in his Sermon he had this passage And let us now awake which so long have slept and in our sleep have done so much naughtines against the Sacraments of Christ denying the blessed Sacrament of the Altar and pulled downe the Altars March 30. 1555. Bishop Farrar was Articled against among other things for causing an Altar set up in the body of Carmarthen Church to be taken away and a Table to be sett up in the middle of the Church for celebration of the Communion On the 3. of December John Austen a violent Papist came to the Lords Table in M. Blinds Church at Adesham being Churchwarden and layd both his hands upon it saying who set this here againe it being taken downe the Sunday before He is a knave that set it here c. and if he say any service here againe I will lay the Table on his face in that rage he with other tooke up the Table and layd it on a chest in the Chancell and set the Tressels by it And the 26. of November following he sayd to M. B. and ye pulled downe the Altar will ye built it againe No quoth he except I be commaunded for I was commaunded to do that I did The next Sunday this Churchwarden had provided a Preist to say Masse for which he had gottâ—â—aâ— Altar October 1. 1555. in the last Examâ—nation of Bishop Ridley D. White Bishop of Lincolne raged this argument to Ridely out of Cyrill Altars are erected in Christs name in Britaine in farre Countries Ergo Christ is come But we may use the contrary of that reason Altars are plucked downe in Britaine Ergo Christ is not come Bishop Ridley smilng answered your Lordship is not Ignorant that this word Altare in Scripture signifieth as well the Altar whereupon the Jewes were wont to make their burnt Sacrifices as the Table of the Lords Supper Cyrillus mâ—aneth there by this word Altare not that the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord and by that saying Aultars are erected in Christs name Ergo Christ is come he meaneth that the Communion is
them To which I shall adde a 5. inference That Christ himselfe never gave any attendance at the Altar nor yet Melchiâ—edecke or any of Christs Tribe Therfore none of Christs Ministers ought to doe it and that those Archbishops Bishops Preists and Ministers who will needs have set up Altars plead write dispute for Altars likewise waite on serve give attendance at the Altar are only Preistes of Aaron or Baal of their Tribe not Ministers of Iesus Christ nor any of his sacred Tribe none of which gave any attendance at the Altar This is the Apostles reason inference the very drife of his argumentation not mine let those therfore whom it concernes looke well unto it and evade or answer it as they may 6. Christians have no such sacrifices incense-offrings or oblations which require any materiall Altars to consecrate or offer or sacrifice thereupon no spirituall service at all that requires an Altar Therfore they neither have nor ought to have any Altar All their Sacrifices now as prayer prayse liberality to the poore mortifying their lusts the offring up of their soules and bodyes â—living Sacrifice unto God are spirituall requiring neither a Preist much lesse an Altar to Sacrifice or offer them upon Psal. 51. 17. 19. Amos 4. 5. Hâ—sea 14. 2. Mich. 6. 8. Hâ—or 1. 15. 1. Cor. 16. 1. 2. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Rom 12. 1. as Bishop Hooper and King Edward the 6. with his Counsell argue Therfore they neither have nor ought to hâ—re any materiall Altar but only Christ their spirituall Altar in heaven 〈◊〉 sacrifice and offer them up to God upon 7. If the Communion Table were an Altar then it should be greater and better then the Sacramentall bread or wine or the Lords Supper itselfe and a meanes to consecrate them This reason is fully warranted by our Saviours owne resolution Math. 23. 18. 19. Woe be unto yow ye blind guides which say whosoever shall sweare by the Altar it is nothing but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it he is guilty Yee fooles and blind for whether is greather the gift or the Altar that sanctifieth the gift and by Exod. 23. 37. c. 40. 10. where the Altar is called most holy because it sanctified all the Sacrifices offred thereon as more holy then they even as Christ our spirituall altar consecrates and hallowes all our spirituall Sacrifices Hebr. 13. 10. Math. 16. 23. But no man dare or can truly say that the Lords Table is better then the bread and wine or the Lords Supper itselfe though those who bow and ringe unto it both when there is no Sacrament on it and when they have the Sacrament itselfe in their hand to which they give no such adoration imply it to be so or that it consecrates the Sacrament layd upon it for what need then any prayer or words of consecration therfore it is no Altar 8. Every Altar was and ought to be dedicated solemnly consecrated unto God with speciall oyntments sprinkling of blood and solemnities specially the Altar of incense and attonement and those Altars placed in the Temple else they were not to be used or reputed Altars Exod. 24. 4. to 9. c. 29. 36. to 45. c. 30. 1. to 11. 23. to â—0 c. 39. 38. 39. c. 40. 5. 9. 10 c. Num. 7. 1. 2. Chron. 7. 7. 9. Ezech. 43. 6. to 27. Thus the Papists use to consecrate and dedicate their Altars and thus was the Altar of Wolverhamptons Collegiate Church in the Countre of Stafford upon the 11. day of Octob. 1635. solemnely dedicated after the Popish manner by M. Iefferies Archdeacon of Salop and others of which more anon But our Communion Tables were never thus consecrated nor solemnely dedicated sprinkled enoyled neither in truth ought they to be by any Law of God or of our Church and State Therfore they neither are nor can be Altars 9. That which will be a meanes to make ignorant people superstitious falsehearted Ministers to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists and to usher Popery Masse Masse-Preistes by degrees into our Church againe to the polluting defiling of Gods house Sâ—crament the setting up of grosse Idolatrie must needs be sinnefull unlawfull to be abandoned of us But the erecting of Altars in our Churches the calling of Communion Tables Altars and turning of them Altarwise so reading second service administring at them will make ignorant people and superstitious false hearted Ministers still to dream of Sacrifices Masse and Popish Preists will usher Popery Masse and Masse-Preists by degrees into our Church againe c. as Bishop Hooper others forequoted authorities evidence and King Edward the 6. and his Councell in their 3. reason against Altars resolve Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. Therfore they must needs be sinfull unlawfull to be abandoned of us now as they have been heretofore both in King Edward the 6. in Queen Elizabeths dayes 10. That which neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the Primitive Church for above the 250. yeares after him either had or used in their Churches administration of the Sacrament that we who ought to imitate their example 1. Cor. 11. 23. 24. 1. Pet. 2. 21. 1. John 2. 6. ought not to have erected or suffer in our Churches But neither Christ nor his Apostles nor the primitive Church in her purest times for above 250. yeares after Christ either had or used any Altars in their Churches or administration of the Sacrament but Communion Tables only Therfore we ought not to have erect or suffer them among us now This is the 5. reason used by King Edward the 6. his Counsell against Altars Fox Acts and Monuments p. 1211. who propounds it thus Christ did institute the Sacrament of his body and blood at his last Supper at a Table and not at an Altar as it appeareth manifestly by the Euangelists And S. Paul calleth the comming to the holy Communion the comming unto the Lords Supper and also it is not read that any of the Apostles or the Primitive Church did ever use any Altar in administration of the Holy Communion Wherfore seeing the forme of a Table is more agreable with Christs institution and with the usage of the Apostles and of the Primitive Church then the forme of an Altar therfore the forme of a Table is rather to be used then the forme of an Altar in the administration of the Holy Communion Now because this truth hath been lately noted with a blacke Coale and some what blurred obseured I shall produce some few authorities to cleare it The third part of our owne incomperable Homily against the Perill of Idolatrie confirmed both by Statute the Articles of our Church and every Ministers subscription as Orthodox truth p. 44. assures us That all Christians in the Primitive Church as Origen against Celsus Cypriam also Aâ—nobius doe
testify were fore charged and complained on that they had no Altars nor Images It is evident therfore that they tooke all Images yea all Altars to by the same reason to be vnlawfull in the Church of the Temple of God and therfore had none though the Gentiles therfore were Highly displeased with them following this rule we must obey God rather then men So the Homily which Bishop Jewell thus seconds There have been Altars sayth M. Harding even from the Apostles time and that even as it is used now farr from the body of the Church c. This man could never utter so many untruthes together without some speciall priviledge For first where he sayth The Apostles in their time erected Altars It is well knowen that there was no Christian Church yet built in the Apostles times for the faithfull for feare of the Tyrants were faine to meet together in private houses in vacant places in woodes and Forests and in Caves under the ground And may we thinke that Altars were built before the Church Verily Origen thal lived above 200. yeares after Christ hath these words against Celsus Objicit nobis quod non habemus Imagines aut Aras aut Templa Celsus chargeâ—h our religion with this that we have neither Images nor Altars nor Temples Likewise sayth Arnobius that lived somewhat after Origen writing against the heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus â—oc Imagines nec Aras Yee accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Images nor Altars And Volateranus Vernerius testify that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the First that caused Altars to be erected Therfore M. Harding was not well advised so confidently to say That Altars have ever been even sithence the Apostles time Learned M. Thomas Beacon in his Supplication in the third Volumme of his workes printed Cum Privilegio and dedicated to all the Bishops of England by name and to Queen Elizabeth herselfe London 1562. f. 16. In his Comparison between the Lords Supper and the Popes Masse f. 102. 103. Reliques of Rome Tit. of Church Goods f. 322. writes thus Christ his Apostles and the Primitive Church used Tables at the administration of the Holy Communion The Primitive Church more then 200. yeares after Christs ascension used Tables at the Celebration of the Divine Mysteries And who so rude or ignorant of Antiquities which knoweth not that Pope Sixtus the second about the yeare of our Lord 265â— brought in the altars first into the Church utterly forbidding Tables any more to be used from thenceforth at the administration of the Lords-Supper when notwithstanding from Christs ascention unto that time the Lords Supper was alway ministred at a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church Pope Sixtus the second ordained first of all that the Supper of the Lord should be celebrated at an Altar which before was not the use for the Holy mysteries of the Lords body and blood untill that time was ministred upon a Table according to the practise of Christ of his Apostles and of the primitive Church here may all men see from whence the Popish altars come for the which the stuborne stout Papists doe so stoutly strive some now too that call themselves Protestants about the yeare of our Lord if stories be true 265. came in the Altars first into the Church others affirme that they came in about the yeare of our Lord 594. But I beleive that Altars came not into the Church before the yeare of our Lord 590. when the Popish peevish Private Masse began first to creep in Volateranus Durand Flascit Mass. Pet. Aequillinus Joan. Sella Thus M. Beacon The same is affirmed by learned M. Calshill in his answer to Marshalls Treatise of the Crosse printed at London 1565. f. 31. 32. who proves out of Origen l. 8. Cont. Celsum that Christians in Origens age had neither Images nor Altars by M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemish Testament one the 1. Cor. 11. sect 18. v. 19. p. 415. with other of our writers All these Authorities to which the Papists could never yee replie the Coale from the Altar page 45. 46. 47. will blow away at one breath informing us that all these our Authors were mistaken in Origens and Arnobius meaning who must be understood not that the Christians had no Altars in their Temples but that they had no Altars for bloody or externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had For otherwise it is most certaine that the Church had Altars both the name and thing and used both name and thing along time together before the birth of Origen or Arnobius either which he proves by the Testimonyes of Tertullian Irenaeus Cyprian Ignatius the Apostles Canons and Heb. 13. 10. To which I answer first that this namelesse Author in modesty good manners should have rather deemed himselfe mistaken in the meaning of Origen Arnobius then our Homilies and these our learnedest writers whose judgments authorities certainely will over ballance his 2. These Authors tooke their words meaning aright what ever is pretended as appeares 1. By the Gentiles objection itselfe The Gentiles charged the Christians that they had neither Temples nor Images nor Altars Was their meaning then that they had Temples indeed but not to sacrifice in Images to but not to adore or that in truth they simplie had neither Temples nor Images Certainely the Coale itselfe would blush at the first exposition the Papists might else thus pritilie evade these authorities against Images that the Christians had Images but not to adore though the Gentiles objected they had none and Lactantius Minucius Felix too about that age expresly resolved that they had no Temples nor Images at all Their meaning therfore being as our Homilies those very words themselves resolve that they had no publicke Temples no Images at all for any assemblies use or purpose their meaning likewise must be that they had no Altars at all for any purpose not no Altars for any bloody externall Sacrifices as the Gentiles had but yet they had them to administer the Sacrament on as he falsely glosseth it Since the wâ—nt of Temples Imagesâ— Altars are all coupled together objected to them in the same sence and manner Now had the Christians in that age had Temples but not for Idolls service Images but not to adore Altars but not to offer bloody and externall Sacrifices on as the Coale Glosseth it the Gentiles would then never have objected the want of Temples Altars or Images to them as is probable since they had them but their not sacrificing on them adoring them as they did not making a right use of them whoâ— they had them as we tax all couetous men or Nonpreaching Ministers that are Schollers not for having no mony or learning but for not making such use of them as they should The very objection therefore cleares it
Apocryphall He for the most part taking the name Church and Churches in the Authors quoted or in truth misquoted by him for materiall Churches which they meane only of the Christian Congregations who had then no publike Churches but only private places in Woods Chambers Vaults Caves and the like to meet in as Tertullianâ— Bishop Jewell and our owne Homilies witnes But admit this Booke Passage to be Tertullians owne yet then it may be a question whether Tertullian meanes by Aram the Lords-Table or that place wherein the Christians mett Ara signifying a Sanctuarie as well as an Altar If the place wherein the Christians assembled as the words preceeding drift of the place import Sle militer de statlonum diebus non putant plerique Sacrificiorum Orationibus interveniendum quod Statio solvenda sit accepta corpore Domini Ergo denotum Deo obsequium Eucharistia resolvit an magis Deo obligat Nonne solemnor erit statio sâ—ad Aram Dei steteris to wit after the Sacrament received Accepto corpore Domini reservatio utrumque salarum est participatio Sacrificij executio officij which cannot properly be intended that Tertullian would have the Christians stand all at the Altar and not depart from it after they had received Christs body and blood standing still in the place that they received in but that they should not depart out of the place wherein they assembled till all prayers divine offices were fully ended If I say it be meant only of the place or Sanctuary itselfe then it makes nothing to the purpose if of the Altar or Communion Table itselfe then it will inevitably follow hence that the Christians of that age received the Sacrament only standing not kneeling and so it more disadvantageth the objector one way then benefits him another However it is but a single Testimonie therfore ought not to â—ver-ballance those many pregnant weighty punctuall authorities to the contrary The last authority to prove the name use of Altars in the Primitive Church before Arnobius in Oâ—igens time is S. Cyprians Three places out of him are quoted in the Coale but the words not cited The first is his Epistle to Epictetus and the people of Assuras As if it were lawfull after the Altars of the Devill to approch to the Altar of God c. whence we behold and beleive this censure to have come from the disquisition of God ne apud Altare consistere that they should not persevere to stand at the Altar or any more to handle it And that they should contend with all their might that such should not returne againe ad Altaris impiamenta contagia fratrum to the polluting of the Altar and contagion of the brethren The second is his Epistle to the Presbyters Deacons and people of Furnis It was long agoe ordained in a Councell of Bishops that no Clergie man or Minister of God should be appointed an Executor or overseer of any mans will since all who are honored with divine Preisthood ought not to addict themselves to any thing but only to serve the Altar and Sacrifices and to prayers and orisons The Leviticall Tribe which did waite on the Temple and Altar divine service had no inheritance or temporall portion allotted them among their brethren but others manuring the earth they should only worship God c. Therfore Victor since against the forme lately prescribed to Preists in the Councell he hath adventured to appoint Geminius Faustinus being a Presbyter a Tutor non est quod prodormitione ejus apud vos fiat oblatio aut deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur ut Sacerdotum decretum religiose necessarie factum servetur a nobis simul caeteris fratribus detur exemplum ne quid Sacerdotes ministros Dei Altari ejus Ecclesiae vocantes ad saeculares molestias devocet The third is his Epistle to Januarius Porro autem Eucharistia unde baptizati unguntur oleum in Altari sanctificatur sanctificare autem non potuit olei creaturam qui nec Altare habuit nec Ecclesiam unde nec unctio spiritalis apud haereticos potest esse quando constet oleum sanctificari Eucharistiam fieri apud illos omnino non posse And in his Oration de Coena Domini we find only once mention of the Lords Table twice of an Altar To these authorities I answer first in generall that the often mention of an Altar in these places rather argues the Epistles this Sermon not to be Cyprians then that the Christians in his time had Altars which all the forecited Fathers Authors deny 2. That many forged workes are attributed to S. Cyprian and many places in him corrupted as D. James M. Alexander Cooke have proved among the vest they manifest his Sermon de Coena Domini which mentions Altars with other of his workes to be none of his but Arnoldus Bonavillacensis living about the yeare of our Lord 1156. at least 900. yeares after Cyprian these Epistles for ought I know may be his or some others most at least many of the Epistles or attributed to other of the Fathers and Popes being spurious 3. The name Altar is not usuall in any Orthodox undoubted writers of that age Dionysiusâ—Alexandrinus as I have proved in his Epistle registred by Eusebius living about S. Cyprians age twice termes it only the Lords Table 4. Pamelius in his Notes on these Epistles seemes to stagger at them nor knowing certainly to de fine what time they were written nor what the parties were to whom or concerning whom they were directed 5. S. Cyprian in many other Epistles that are undoubtedly his calls the Sacrament only the Eucharist the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body blood the Table in S. Paules words only the Lords Table And in his Epistle to Caelicius only concerning the Cup in the Sacrament which all coufes to be his he confines all men most punctually to our Saviors institution and example in all things concerning the Sacrament writing that Bishops through out the world ought to hold the reason of the Euangelicall truth and Dominicall tradition nor to depart from those things which Christ our Master hath both commaunded and done by any humane and novell Tradition that we ought herein to doe only what the Lord hath done before that if S. Paul or an Angell from heaven should teach us to doe any thing then what Christ hath once taught us and his Apostles preached they are and should be to us an Anathema That Christ only is to be heard therfore we ought not to attend what any one before us shall thinke meet to be done but that Christ who is before all men hath first done Neither ought we to follow the custome of any man but the truth of God For if we are the Ministers of God and Christ I find
none whom we ought more or rather to follow then God and Christ. S. Cyprian therfore tying himselfe and all men thus strictly to Christs institution example in all points and circumstances of the Sacrament And Christ his Apostles never administring it at an Altar nor stiling the Lords-Table an Altar his Apostles never serving nor giving attendance at an Altar I cannot but from hence conclude that these Passages certainely are none of Cyprians But to come to the particular scanning of these authorities 1. I answer That the first of them doth not precisly call the Lords-Table an Altar nor expresly affirme that Christians then had Altars being a meere allusion to the Preists and Altars under the Law relating to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. Exod. 29. 37. 44. as the Text itselfe doth evidence Which allusions were frequent in our Ministers Prayers Sermons when we had no Altars in our Church for them to waite at nor Communion Tables called or knowen by the names of Altars 2. That it mentions a Canon and Constitution made at least 60. yeares after S. Cyprians time to wit in the Councell of Anegra An. 314. Canon 1. 2. 3. there being no such Canon extant in any Councell held in his age which makes it suspuious if not spurious written long after his decease 3. If this Epistle make any thing for Altars then it makes farre more against our Bishops tenets power now since it exprâ—sly affirmes that the people have power are boundin conscience to reject alwayes and not to receive any man for their Bishop or to admit him to enjoy his Bishopricke who shall fall away from the truth to heresie or Idolatrie that by such a lapse he ipso facto looseth his Bishopricke and becomes no Bishop neither ought to be admitted to his former degree of a Bishop but the people are to elect a new in his steâ—d the maine scope drist of this Epistle To the second I answer that this Epistle mentions a Canon LONG BEFORE in a full Councell not in S. Cyprians age for ought appeares before whose dayes we read of no such Councell but long after Yea Pamelius notes that this Epistle was written in some Councell in what he knoweth not belike in the 1. 3. or 4. Councell of Carthages an hundreth yeares after that under S. Cyprian In which Councells the Constitution mentioned in this Epistle written as is evident by the subject of it after these 3. Councells was made and decreed so not S. Cyprians And indeed the words Non est quod pro dormitione ejus fiat oblatio aâ—t deprecatio nomine ejus in Ecclesia frequentetur discover it rather to be some late Popish Friers then his But admit it his yet the word Altar and expression herein used is but an allusion to that of 1. Cor. 9. 13. doth not expresly define the Lords Table to be an Altar or so named or reputed in his age or that the Christians then had Altars And if it makes any thing for Altars in that age yet that expresly condemnes Clergiemens intermedling with any secular offices or imployments whatsoever since they ought wholy yea solely to addict and devote themselves to Gods service prayer preaching and other spirituall duties of their ministeriall function A shrowde checke to some of our present Prelates Clergiemen now most zealous for Altars who dare presume to take upon them temporall offices honors imployments so farre to ingage themselves in Secular Temporall Civill or State affaires that many of theâ— almost wholy neglect their spirituall functions and duties serving the world and Mammon more then God himselfe To the third I answer that this savors not of Cyprians age in being not the use of Christians then to consecrate chrisme or the Sacrament on an Altar much lesse the Doctrine of that time that Chrisme or the Eucharist could not be coÌ„secrated without an Altar which doctrine being quite contrary to what this Father delivers in his forecited Epistle to Coelicius I may farther affirme it to be a lâ—â—e Popish foâ—gerie and imposture then S. Cyprians And so 〈◊〉 all the premises I may now safely conclude notwithstanding these objected authorities in the Coale that the Primitive Church and Christians for above 250. yeares after Christ had no Altars neither did they repute or call the Lords Table an Altar and so my â— 9. Argument still holds good maugre all those spurious Fathers newminted evasions I now proceed to my 10. Argument 10. Those things and names which the whole Church State most approved writers of our Church of England have censured abandoned condemned upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore ought not to be patronized used written preached for revived or new erected in our Churches now But the whole Church State most approved writers of the Church of England have censured abandoned and condemned Altars with their names and the calling of the Communion Tables upon good godly pious grounds considerations heretofore Therfore they ought not to be patronized used written for or preached revived or new erected in our Churches now The Major is unquestionable the Minor evidently proved in by the premises which yet to make more perspicuous I shall further cleare by these ensuing authorities Osotius Dormian Harding the Rhemists Hart and other Papists complained of King Edward the 6. Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England in their time that they had taken away broken downe demolished all the Altars and cast them out of the Church setting up prophane Tables or Oister-boards as they termed them in their steeds using only such Tables not Altars to consecrate the Lords-Supper on blaming our Church in the selfe same manner for the selfe same cause as the Idolatrous heathens did the Christians in the Primitive Church for that we have no Altars to consecrate upon A cleare Confession and apparant evidence that the Church of England both in King Edwards and Queen Elizabeths dayes abolished and condemned Altars Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester scoffingly accused the Protestants in King Edward dayes that they had no Altars but Tables and Boardes to eat and drinke at to which Peter Martyr Regius Professor of Divinity in the Vniversity of Oxford in King Edwards dayes returned this answer What use is there of an Altar where no fire burnes nor beastes are slaine for Sacrifices And concerning bowing to Altars a Popish Ceremony or rather Idolatry or superstition now much practised both without Scripture Canon he there thus determines If an Angell from heaven would provoke us to adore either Sacraments or Altars let him be accursed I doe not thinke sayth hee that any of the Fathers were polluted with so grosse Idolatrie as to bow their bodyes before Altars especially when there is no Communion but if at any time they shall be discovered to have done thus let none of us be lead by
faithfullist understanding the unlearned people should not be greatly beholden unto them for their straunge termes being so farre fetched For thus I understand them The Sacrament of the Altar that is to say the signe of the Altar which Altar betokeneth the Crosse which Crosse betokeneth the Sacrifice that was offred on the Crolle or the passion and death of Jesus Christ. Wherfore good Christian brethren let us that are homely fellowes not be ashamed of the old Termes that we have at our home in the text of Holy Scripture which calleth the reverend and healthfull remembraunce of the Lords death by breaking of bread by the name of the Lords Supper or the Communion partaking of the body bloud of Christ. And the thing whereat we sitt devoutly to eate the Lords Supper lett us both have it and call it the Lords-bord or the Lords-Table and not a borrowed towell nor a Popish stone Altar nor yet a wodden Altar with a Super-altar And let us present with so far fetched termes and so dearly bought the Popes glace and his faire Ladyes of Rome Thus he John Bale Bishop of Osyris in his Image of both Churches or parâ—phrase upon the Revelation as he makes Christ himselfe the only Altar spoken of and intended Rev. 6. 9. c. 11. 1. upon whom the full Sacrifice of Redemption was offred So in his Preface to the first part of his Booke he reckons up beades Altars Images Organs Lights c. among the Ceremonies of the Popish Church terming them the very filthy dreggs of darknes All which upon the 17. Chapter fol. 162. he sayth shal be plucked away by the evident word of God and then no longer shall this Harlot of Rome appeare For no longer continueth the whore then whoredome is in price Take away the Rites and Ceremonies the Jewels and Ornaments the Images and lightes their Lordships and Fatherhodes the Altars and Masses with the Bishops and Preists and what is their Holy whorish Church any more Bishop Pilkington in his exposition upon the Prophet Aggeas c. 1. v. 9 reckons up Altars Copes Masses Trentals among other Popish abominations which the Common people thought would bring them through Purgatory for a little Mony how wickedly soever they had lived And c. 2. v. 3. he writes thus The Popes Church hath all things pleasant in it to delight the people with all as for the eyes their God hanges in a rope Images gilded painted carved most finely copes challaces crosses of gold and silver banners with Reliques and Altars for the eares singing ringing and Organs piping for the nose frankincense sweet to wash away sinnes as they say Holy water of their owne holying and making Preists an infinite sort Masses Trentalls driges and pardones c. But where the Gospells preached they knowing that God is not pleased but only with a pure heart they are content with an Honest place appointed to resort together in though it were never hallowed by Bishops at all but have only a pulpit a preacher to the People a Deacon for the poore a Table for the Communion with bare walles or els written with Scriptures haveing Gods eternall word sounding alwayes amongst them in their sight and eares and last of all they should have good discipline correct faults and keepe good order in all their meetings Learned M. Thomas Becon in his workes in Folio printed at London Cum Privilegio An. 1562. dedicated by name to both their Archbishops all the Bishops of England by them approved hath many excellent passages and invectives against Altars some whereof I shall transcribe at large In his Humble supplication unto God for the restoring of his Holy word written in Queen Maries dayes vol. 3. fol. 16. 17. 24. 29. He writes thus Moreover heretofore we were taught to beate downe the Idolatrous and Heathenish Altars which Antichrist of Rome intending to set up a new Preisthode a strang Sacrifice for sinne commaunded to be built up as though calfes goates sheep such other brute beastes should be offred againe after the Preisthode of Aaron for the sinnes of the people and to set in their steed in some convenient place a seemly Table and after the example of Christ to receave together at it the holy mysteries of Christs body and bloud in remembrance that Christs body was broken and his bloud shead for our sinnes But now the sacrificing â—orcerers shame not both in their private talke and in their open Sermons spitefully to call the Lords Table an Oysterbord and therfore have they taken out of the Temples those seemely Tables which we following the examples of the dearly beloved sonne and of the Primative Church used at the Ministration of the Holy Communion and they have brought in againe their bloodly and butcherly Altars and upon those they sacrifice offer dayly say they that is they kill slea and murder thy deare sonne Christ for the sinnes of the people For as thy Holy Apostle sayth Heb. 9. Where no sheading of bloud is there is no remission and forgivenes of sinnes If thorow their Massing sinnes be forgiuen then must the Sacrifice that there is offred be slain and the bloud thereof shead If the Massemonger therfore offer Christ up in their Masses a Sacrifice unto God for the sinnes of the people so followeth it that they murder kill and slea Christ yea and shed his bloud at their Masses and so by this meanes we must needes confesse that bloody Altars are more meet for such bloody butchers then honest and pure Tables But we are taught in the holy Scriptures Rom. 6. that Christ once raised from death dyeth no more Death hath no more power over him For as touching that he died he died concerning sinne once And as touching that he liveth he liveth unto the God his Father If Christ therfore died no more then doe the Papists sacrifice him no more If they sacrifice him no more then are they but jangling juglars and their Masses serve for none other purpose but to keepe the people in blindnesse to deface the passion and death of Christ and to maintaine their idle and drafsacked bellies in all pompe and honor with the labor of other mens hands and with the sweat of poope mens browes so farr is it of that they with their abominable Massing stincking sacrificing put away the sinnes either of the quicke or of the dead as they make the unlearned simple people to beleive Ah Lord God heavenly Father if thou were not a God of long suffring of great patience how couldest thou abide these intollerable injuries and so much detestable blasphemyes which the wicked Papists committ against thee thy sonne Christ in their Idolatrous Masses at their Heathenish Altars As in the dayes of wicked Queen Jezabel the Altars of the Lord were cast downe and other Altars were reared and set up to Baal even so now the Tables
apparell garnished with gold pearle precyous stone And because that he which should minister at that gorgeous sumptuous Altar should answer in some points to the glory thereof therfore it was devised that the minister also should have on his backe galant and gorgious apparell as an Amyce an albe a tunicke a girdle a fannell a stole a vestment c. whereof some were made of silke some of veluet some of cloth of gold yea those garnished with Angels with Images with birds with beastes with fishes with floures with herbes with trees and with all things that might satisfy and please the vaine eye of the carnall man And all these things being before but voluntary greâ— afterward unto matters of so great waight importance yea unto such necessity that it was made a matter of conscience yea it was become deadly sinne to minister the Holy Communion without these scenicall Histrionicall Hickescorner like garments so that now to sing Masse or to consecrate as they use to say without these Popish robes is counted in the Church of the Papists more then twice deadly sinne so farr is it of that these Missall vestures are now things of indifferency Wherfore in my judgment it were meet and convenient that all such disguised apparell were utterly taken away forasmuch as it is but the vaine invention of man hath been greatly abused of the Massing Papistes For what hath the Temple of God to do with Idolls what concord is there between Christ and Beliall what have the vestiments of a Popish Altar to doe with the Table of the Lord Christ. Many such passages are in this Author which for brevity case I pretermitt Reverend M. Alexander Nowell in his Reprofe of Dormans profe printed at London Cum privilegio Anno 1565. fol. 15. 16. 17. 66. writes thus Touching the name of Altars which M. Dorman so gladly catcheth hold of here is S. Basill as he did before in S. Cyprian lib. 3. Epist. 9. where we call it the Lords Table we have for us good authority First that Christ instituted the Sacrament at a Table and not at an Altar is most manifest except M. Dorman would have us thinke that men had Altars in steed of Tables in their private houses in those dayes but our Saviour expressely saying that the handes of him who should betray him were upon the Table taketh away all doubting Luc. 22. c. 21. And S. Paule 1. Cor. 10. v. 21. also calleth it Mensam Dominicam the Lord his Table Sure I am that M. Dorman all the Papists with him can not say so much out of the Scriptures of the new Testament for their Altars as I have alledged for the Lords Table they may goe therfore joyne themselves to the Jewes as in multitude of Jewish ceremonies so in Altars also as it seemeth indeed they would both become themselves and make us too Jewes rather then Christians If S. Basill some old writers call it an Altar that is no proper but a figurative name for that as in the old Law their burnt offrings Sacrifices were offred upon the Altar so are our Sacrifices of prayer and thankgiving c. offred up to God at the Lords Table at it were an Altar But such kind of figurative speech can be no just cause to set up Altars rather then Tables unlesse they think that their crosses also should be turned into Altars for that like phrase is used of them where it is sayed Christ offred up himselfe upon the Altar of the Crosse. Now the old Doctors doe call it the Lords Table usually truly without figure and agreably to the Scriptures Concerning the spirituall worship or service of God or Sacrifice if yow will seeing it is also mentioned in S. Basill due to be done at the Lords Table which as a fore is noted he calleth an Altar it is not lacking in our Churches at the Lords Table that is to say true repentaunce of heart which is as the Prophet calleth it Psal. 51. v. 19. a service a Sacrifice pleasaunt unto God the offering up of our prayers prayses unto God which service and Sacrifice of prayse as the Psal. withnesseth Psa. 50. c. 14. v. 23. doth honour God specially that Sacrifice of thankes giving most peculiar to this Altar or Lords Table and to that Holy Sacrament having thereof a peculiar name being called with the Greekes Eucharistia to say thankes giving for the gratefull remembraunce of that one Sacrifice offered by our Saviour once for all which Sacrifice of thanks giving we joyntly with other present doe offer up to Christ our Saviour in the memoriall by him selfe and by faith in our heates doe communicate his precious body and blood a Sacrifice by him selfe offred for us Neither are our oblations or offrings to the poore lacking when we come to this Altar which S. Paul Phil. 4. v. 18. also calleth a Sacrifice acceptable and pleasant to God where as yow Papists have no such thing but only the bare word Offertorium without any offring for the poore saving that yow did not forget to receive the offrings for your selves at the usuall offring dayes and when any Dirige or Monthes mind did fall Thus yow se M. Dorman that we have even that same spirituall worship service and Sacrifice too if yow so will due to be done at this Altar that is to witt the Lords Table which S. Paul speaketh of here and any other Altar or service he meaneth not nor knew none And were yow not altogether to grosse S. Basill so oft speaking of spirituall worshipping and spirituall service might somewhat reforme your carnall and sensuall understanding yow se we doe not sticke to grant yow not only a spirituall worship and service but a Sacrifice too which yet hath no need of your Altars framed to your selves upon this false phantasie that the body and bloud of Christ are there offred by the Preistes for the quicke dead with the abuse of that distinction of the bloudy and unbloudy offering of Christs body applied to the same which altogether is a false fable a vaine dreame most meet for M. Dorman The Scriptures Heb. 10. v. 10. 12. 14. 13. 11. 12. doe thus teach us that Christ our Saviour once for all offred up his body and bloud upon the Altar of the Crosse the one only Sacrifice of sweet Saviour to his Father by the which one oblation of the body of Christâ— a Sacrifice for our sinnes once for ever offered and no more to be offered by any man we be sanctified and made perfit Wherfore the Popish Preistes which doe repeate often the Sacrifice of Christs death as they doe teach thereby as much as in them lieth doe take away the efficacie and vertue of the Sacrifice of Christes death making it like to the Sacrifices of the old Law the imperfection of which Sacrifices S. Paul doth prove by the often repetition of the
thus Thus Idolls brought in Oratories Chapels and Altars Sacrifices vestimentes such like vvhich all be utterly condemned of the Lord. fol. 31. 32. he proves out of Origen that the primative Christians had neither Images nor altars in their Churches And fol. 95. writing against the Popish manner of consecrating Churches he concludes thus then they put on their Massing coates and come like blind fooles with candles in their handes at noone daye and so proceed to the Holy Masse vvith renting of throtes tearing of notes chanting of Preists howling of Clarkes flinging of coales piping of Organs thus they continue a long while in mirth and jolity many mad parts be played But vvhen the vice is come from the Altar and the people shall have no more sport they conclude their service with a true sentence Terribilis est locus iste this place is terrible And have they not fisht faire thinke you to make such a doe to bring in the Devill O blind beastes O senselesse Hipocrites whom God hath geven over unto themselves that they should not see their owne folly and yet bevvray their shame to all the vvorld beside Bishop Babington in his Comfortable Notes upon Exodus chap. 27. fol. 307. 308. writes thus upon Altars Concerning the Altar how it vvas made for matter height length and breadth the text is plaine in the 8. first verses For the use of us we may note two things First that it was a figure of Christ as the Apostle to the Hebrewes expoundeth it And secondly that the Altars used in Popery are not warranted by this example But that the Primative Churches used Communion Tables as we now doe of boards and wood not Altars as they doe of stone Origen was above two hundred yeares after Christ he sayth that Celsus objected it as a fault to the Christians Quod nec imagines nec Templa nec Aras haberent that they had neither Images nor Churches nor Altars Arnobius after him sayth the same to the Heathens Accusatis nos quod nec Templa habeamus nec Aras nec Imagines yow accuse us for that we have neither Churches nor Altars nor Images Gerson sayth that Silvester the first caused stone Altars to be made and willed that no man should consecrate at a wooden Altar but himselfe and his successors there Belike then the former ages knew not profound reason that Altars must be of stone quia Peâ—ra erat Christus because the Rocke was Christ as Durandus after devised Upon this occasion in some places stone Altars were used for steddinesse and continuance wooden Tables having been before used but I say in some places not in all For S. Augustine sayth that in his time in Africa they were made of wood For the Donatists sayth he breake in sunder the Altar-boords Again the Deacons duty was to remove the Altar Chrysostome calleth it The Holy boord S. Augustine mensam Domini the Table of the Lord. Athanasius mensam ligneam the Table of wood Yet was this Communion Table called an Altar not that it was so but only by allusion metaphorically as Christ is called an Altar or our hearts be called Altars c. Marke with your selfe therfore the newnesse of this point for stone Altars in comparison of our ancient use of Communion Tables and let Popery and his parts fall and truth sound antiquity be regarded Touching the hornes of the Altar spoken of they litterally served to keep up the Sacrifice from falling of figuratively noted strength so that to bind the Sacrifice to the hornes of the Altar was to give themselves wholly with a strong Faith and only to rest trust and stay upon him and to tye all carnall affections fast also to the Altars Hornes by subduing and making them captive to God This Altar was in one place and the Sacrifice in one place nothing how Christ should only once and in one place offer up himselfe for all man kind Concerning the Lampes as little doe they warrant Popish Altars And Christians used no such follies apish imitations of things abrogated serving only for the time M. Thomas Cartwright in his Confutation of the Rhemists translation Glosses and Annotations on the New Testament upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians chap. 11. sect 18. fol. 415. writes thus of Altars The next note to discerne the Lords body is the removing of prophane Tables to consecrate Holy Altars So the Rhemists to which he replies Altars under the Law were Holy because they were builded upon the foundation of Gods institution Now they are prophane not only because they have no institution of God whereupon a stone may be layd but because they are contrary to the institution which propoundeth a Table Luke 22. 21. 1. Cor. 10. 21. 1. Cor. 11. 20. Math. 26. 20. 26. 27. and in the matter of the Eucharist never mentioneth Altar which is confirmed further in that this Sacrament is called in the Scripture the Supper of the Lord whereunto a Table doth well agree is never termed a Sacrifice for which an Altar is fit That it is sayd they sat downe a thing used at a table strang at an Altar whereat they sat not but stood that they did eat drinke which was never used at an Altar and is usuall at a table For although they did eate of that which came from the Altar yet they never did eate at it And if your Masonrie of Altars came from the Lords ordination under the Law why should our table be prophane or your Altar Holy considering that even under the Law there was as well a Holy table as an Holy Altar And setting apart the example of Christ by so much the table is fitter now then the Altar as the shew-bread standing upon the table hath a nearer Analogie with the bread of the Sacrament then had the flesh of slaine beastes which was layd upon the Altar Now your Hill Altars being failed of the Holy Scriptures goe to beg grace of the ancient Fathers where notwithstanding that they find some better entertainment then in the word of God yet is your building of Altars by their hands like unto Peters Chappell at Rome which is alwayes building and never built If they present yow with some rough stones to the setting of it up yet bring they no morter to hold them from falling upon heapes For often times they helpe you with the name of an Altar when the thing they signifie therby is a Communion Table assigning it the Deacons Dutie to remove the Altar that the ALTAR STOOD IN THE MIDDEST OF THE CHVRCH AND NOT AT THE END OF THE QVIRE even as they terme the Lords Supper a Sacrifice unproperly because it is a signe of the true Sacrifice when in truth they will only recommend unto us a Sacrament Other sometimes even the naked and bare name of Altar they take away from yow calling that whereupon the Holy things are set as it is a Table
as also the Holy things themselves they call by their proper names of signes Sacraments and not by the improper and borrowed speech of Sacrifice or host yea and if Altars were Lawfull yet could they argue no reall presence of the body of Christ upon them unlesse as they doe the bread so they will transubstantiate the dead bodyes of beastes into the body of Christ not then borne when those things were layd upon the Altar Neither hath Augustines Serm. de tempo 115. any thing thereof it hath of the keeping of the Feast of Hallowing of Altars which we suppose your selves doe not observe whereby it may well be doubted as of divers others of those Sermons whether it be Augustines or no especially seeing it giveth so High a commendation to Nebuchadnezzars testimony of Christ the Sonne of God Last of all let the good Reader understand that here in the Papists joyne with the Heathen which quarrelled with the Primative Churches that they had no Images Altars nor Temples whereunto agreeth that Sixtus Bishop of Rome was the first that erected Altars Also that Gerson affirmeth that Silvester Bishop of Rome was the first that caused Altars to be erected of stone whereupon it is also by another called a novelty to have Altars builded D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie Quaest. 6. part 2. Error 54. determines thus Altars we acknowledge none Altars we have none in our Churches S. Paul calleth it the Lords Table,1 Cor. 10. 21. where we receive the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. And he calleth it bread which is broken 1. Cor. 11. 26. But bread is sett upon Tables not sacrificed upon Altars Augustine also calleth it Mensam Domini the Lords table Epist. 59. Epist. 50. He shewing how cruelly the Donatists handled Maximiâ—ian a Catholike Bishop beating him with Clubs even in the Church lignis Altaris effractis immaniter ceciderunt wounded him with the wood of the Altar which they had broken downe where though he improperly call it an Altar yet was it a Communion Table framed of wood and made to be removed not fastened to the wall as their Popish Altars were Damascus Epistol 4. Let the Locall Bishops be content to minister as Preists and to be partakers only of the Lords Table he sayth the Lords Table not the Lords Altar To these I might adde M. Robert Crowlie his Confutation of Myles Hoggard London 1548. where he writes thus Mal. 1. 7. God complaineth of the Isralites that they had polluted him in that they sayd the Table of the Lord is but a vile thing What other thing I pray you doe your sacrificing Preists they cannot abide the Lords Table they must have an Altar Sacrifice They cannot be contented which the Communion at the Lords Table according to the first institution in honest apparell but they must have a private Masse in Masking Cotes dashed full of turnes and halfe turnes beckings duckinges crossinges kissinges tossings tumblings besides the unreverent breathing out of words upon bread wine the holding them up to be worshipped as Gods Also Bishop Jewell Bishop Hooper B. Ridley others in their forecited passages against Altars together with D. Rainold in his Conference with Hart p. 8. Divis. 4. Bishop Morton in his Protest appeale l. 2. c. 6. sect 2. p. 164. Francis de Croy his first Conformity c. 24. M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. David Dickson his explination upon the Epistle to the Hebrewes 2. 7. v. 13. 14. p. 126. 127. and c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. yea and the Statute of 3. Jacobi c 5. which authorizeth Justices of Peace Majors Bailifs other cheife Officers of Cities and Townes Corporate in their Liberties from time to time to search the houses and Lodgings of every Popish recusant convict for Popish Bookes and Reliques of Popery and that if any Altar Pix Beades Pictures or such like Popish Reliques or any Popish Booke or Bookes shall be found in their or any of their custody they shal be presently defaced and burnt which Act expresly defines Altars as well as Beades and Pictures to be meere Reliques of Popery fit to be demolished all which have with one unanimous voyce condemned Altars as Heathenish Jewish Popish abolished by Christs death contrary to his institution the practise of the Apostles and Primative Church and unmeet to be used or tollerated among Christians resolving likewise in expresse Termes that Communion Tables are no Altars nor yet to be so stiled And so by consequence not to be placed Altarwise as the objectors pretend they ought to be because they falsly stile and deeme them Altars If any here object First that Communion Tables are Altars because D. John Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath printed and reprinted with License under M. Brayes the Archbishop of Canterburies Chaplings owne hand London 1636. Edir 1. p. 43. averrs that the Table of the Lord is called an Altar 1. Cor. 8. 13. They that waite of the Altar are partakers of the Altar which is not to be understood of Israell after the flesh for habemus Altare we also under the Gosple have an Altar Heb. 15. 10. And because the late Coale from the Altar Concludes from Heb. 13. 10. that the Lords Table is an Altar and may be so tearmed To this I answer first that this great over confident Doctor shewes himselfe a very Ignoramus in the quotations If not a Papist in his expositions of both these Texts which it seemes he never looked on in the Bible for he quotes the 1. Cor. 8. 13. for c. 9. 13. Heb. 15. 10. for 13. 10. there being not 15. but only 13. Chapters in that Epistle and he who is so ignorant in the Scriptures as thus to misquote misprinte these texts no wonder if he mistake their proper sence and meaning 2. I answer that it is most cleare that the first Text of the two namly 1. Cor. 9. 13. Doe ye not know that they which Minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which waite AT not of the Altar as he reades it are partakers with the Altar is meant only of the Aaronicall Preistes Levites and Iewish Altars not of Christs Ministers and Lords Tables First Because the things of the Temples and Altars which were placed in the body or Court of the Jewish temple there beeing no Altar in any of the Synagoges are here couplâ—d together and the Text of Deut. 18. 1. quoted to it in the margent of our last translated English Bibles of purpose to confute this blind Doctor instruct all men that this Text is meant of the Aaronicall Preist Levites under the Law not of the Ministers under the Gosple as all Expositors whatsoever both old and new interpret it 2. Because the Apostle expresly resolves it so past all dispute in the next ensuing words v. 14. Even so hath the Lord
were wont to eate up their Altars being made of stones And that were hard meat indeed yea that were meate alone for Ostriches yea or rather stone meat were more meet for such as have stony heartes as have all Papisticall Doct. who against their conscience knowledge and learning and being all destitute of the spirit of God cry shout for the defence of their welbeloved Altars Habemus Altars Habemus Altare Habemus Altare yea I may tell yow this Habemus Altare is their judgeling tricke wherby they doe juggle unto the unlearned it is all their Tabernacle only refuge against all tempestes and this is as well their shote anker as their halow at their hosing up of their ankor But to hale in my saile and to land at the proposed haven The English text of Habemus Altare written Hebrew 13. is this Be not carried about with diverse and strang learnings for it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace and not with meates which have not prosited them that have had their pastime in them We have an Altar of the which they have no power to eat which serve in the Tabernacle c. Here he doeth in a manner make a breife rehearsall of all the cheifest matters that he entreated of before adding thereto diverse Godly sentences to persuade the Hebrewes to abide in this learning Inducing them also by alluding unto their Law being but a shadow to cleave unto the Gosple and to let goe the shadow And therfore he sayth thus unto them And as you had certaine Sacrifices offred on the Altars whereof it was not Lawfull even for the very offerers to eat so likewise have we a sacrifice once offred upon the altar of the Crosse whereof it is not Lawfull for as many of yow as be yet duskened with the shadow of the Law to eate nor to be partakers of it at all Now therfore must the Papists be thought not only to be of too childish a witt and of no understanding but rather furious and mad if they continue to prove their stony altars by this text And therfore would I think it an exceeding good deed for such as injoy their right witt to pick out from amongst themselves as many as are vexed with the spirit of the sayd kind of phrenesy and send them to Bedlem or to their owne City of Rome For els they shall still infect other doe more hurt then every man is ware of At the last to draw to an end in this matter where this word Altar is read in the 6. 8. 11. Chapters of the revelation of S. John if altar in those places admitting the like trope and figurative speech do not signifie Christ also God knoweth it signifieth nothing lesse then the confirmation of such altars as the Pope hath filled every corner of Christs Church with all And if the Papistes after that all the Testimonies as well of the Old the New Testament have fayled them goe about to wrest the saying of the old Doctours for the stabilishing of their altars they shall get nothing therby but still utter their owne grosse ignorance or their perverse blindnes For whereso ever the old Catholike Doctours used this word altar for the Lords Table then alluded they unto the Jewes Altar ment thereby the Crosse which served as an altar to offer upon the Sacrifice of Christes naturall body And forsorh ye Papisticall Preistes as many of yow as understand the Latine and marked what yow read and if yee had been Bees not Spiders yow might have gathered the nature of this manner of allusion or resemblance of Christes Crosse unto the altars of the Jewes even out of your owne poysoned Masse For doe you not remember how ye mumbled how ye redd I would say in a certaine rime of your sayd hotch potch which began Laudes crucis extollamus nos qui crucis exultamus c Oquam Falix quam praeclara fuit haec salut is ara rubens agni sanguine O how excellent how happy was this altar of irâ—e besprynckeled with Lambes bloud and againe in another prose Ara crucis lampas lucis verasalus hominum whose sence in English word for word is this The Altar of the Crosse the lampe of light the very health of men By Richard Woodman Martyr who interprets this Text only of Christ in his second Examination before the Bishop of Chicester which I shall here verbatim relaâ—e Chichester Follow your vocation yow have a little learning we have an Altar Heb. 13. whereof yow may not eate What meaneth S. Paul thereby Woodman There is no man so foolish to eate stones I trow Chich. What mockers and scorners be yow to say no man will be so foolish to eate stones it is a plaine â—ocke Wood. Why my Lord yow sayd I had no learning nor knowledge Wherfore it becommeth yow to make things more plaine to me and not to aske me such darke questions and yet blame me to me thinke it is too much Chich. I dare say yow know what it meaneth well inough The most foole in my house will understand my meaning better then yow doe Wood. There stood some of his men not farre of talking together beside a windowe He called one of them by his name Chich. Come hither I say to thee thou shalt not eat of this Table what doe I meane thereby The man Forsooth my Lord yow would not have me eate of this table laying his hand thereupon With this answer he made all them in the house to fall on laughing and I could not hold it in but burst out with laughter and sayd Wood. He hath expounded the matter almost as well as I. Chich. He meaneth well inough if yow would understand him answer me againe to make it more plaine I say to yee Thou shalt not eat of this Table what meane I thereby The man Forsooth yow would not have me eate this Table Wood. These words made them all langh wherewith the Bishop was almost angry because the answer proved no better and sayd Chich. He meaneth that I would not have him eate any of the meat that is set upon this Table How sayest thou doest thou not mean so The man Yes forsooth my Lord that was my meaning indeed Wood. Yea my Lord now yow have told him what yow mean he can say so too and so could I have done as little witt as I have if yow had sayd Paul meant that no man might eate of that which was offred upon the Altar but the Preists Chich. Yea I perceive yow understand the meaning of Paule well inough but that yow list to cavill with me Wood. Why my Lord doe yow thinke I understand such darke places of the Scripture without learning yow sayd even now I had no knowledge nor learning wherfore I answered yow as yow judged of me Chich. Well lett this matter passe let us turne to the principall againe
spirituall Altar Whereby as they conclude that we have not a Common Table or prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon but a very Altar in the proper sence to sacrifice Christ body upon so for profe hereof they adde that in respect of the sayd body sacrificed it is also called an Altar of the Fathers even of Gregorie Nazianzene Chrysostome Socrates Augustine and Theophylact. And when it is called a Table it is in respect of the Heavenly food of Christs body bloud received Rainolds The note of your Rhemists about the Greeke Hebrew word is true I grant yet foolish too though true in the thing yet foolish in the drift For to the intent that where the Apostle sayth we have an Altar it may be thought he meant not that word spiritually or in a figurative sence as we expound it of Christ but materially of a very Altar such as is used in their Masses they say that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew answering mizbbeach thereunto in the old Testam signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a metaphoricall spirituall Altar Which speech how dull it is in respect of the point to which they apply it I will make you see by an example of their owne Our Saviour in the Gospell teacheth of himselfe that he is the true bread which giveth life unto the world the bread which came downe from Heaven that whosoever eateth of it should not die if any man eate of this bread he shall live for ever John 6. v. 61. 33. 50. 51. Your Rhemists in their Annotat. on John 6. 32. doe note thereon that the person of Christ incarnate is meant under the metaphore of bread our beleefe in him is signified by eating Wherein they say well But if a man should tell them that the Greeke word artos as also the Hebrew lechem answering thereunto in the Old Testament doth properly signifie bread which we eat bodily not a metaphoricall or spirituall bread were not this as true a speech as their owne yet how wise to the purpose who is so blind that seeth not yea to goe no farther then the very word whereof by their Hebrew and Greeke they seeke advantage themselves upon that place of John Rev. 6. 9. that he saw under the Altar the soules of them who were killed for the word of God doe affirme expresly that Christ is this Altar Christ say they as man no doubt is this Altar They meane it I hope in a Metaphoricall or other figurative speech For they will not make him by transubstantiation to be an Altar properly yet here is it as true that the Greeke word thusiasterion as also the Hebrew mizebbah answering thereunto in the Old Testament signifieth properly an Altar to sacrifice on and not a Metaphoricall or spirituall Altar And if it were as much for the advantage of their cause to prove that Masse is sayd in Heaven as that in earth and that Christ is properly bread without a figure as that bread is properly Christ in the Sacrament the text of the Scripture where Christ is called bread yea the true bread would prove the one cleerly as they could fitt it with this note and the word Altar would put the other out of controversie cheifly if that were noted with all that an Angell stood before the Altar having a Golden Censer Rev. 8. 3. though others there also affirme the Altar to be Christ. But it fareth with your Rhemists as it is wont vvith false Prophets Ezek. 13. 10. one buildeth up a muddie vval and others daube it over with a rotten plaister and when a storme cometh the wall falleth plaister with it For though as they lay it on it seemeth hansome that vvords signifie properly the naturall things which they are used to signifie not metaphoricall or spirituall things yet if it be opened that heerby is meant that vvords may not be used by metaphors or other figures to signifie those things vvhich properly they doe not signifie the boyes in grammer Schooles who know not vvhat a Metaphore is will laugh at it Wherfore this plaister vvill not helpe the vveaknes of your muddie wall I mean of the Conclusion vvhich you vvould prove it by doe infer upon it that vve have an Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christes body upon In the daubing up whereof yet your plaisterers doe shew a peece of greater Art partly by drawing us into hatred vvho have not Popish Altars but Communion Tables partly by vvinding the names of Fathers in as if they made for you against us Both vvith skill and cunning but more of Sophistrie then divinity 1. Cor. 10. 21. For that vvhich the Scripture doth call the Lords Table because it is ordained for the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 11. 20. in the administration of the blessed Sacrament of the body blood The Fathers also call it a Table in respect of the Heavenly banket that is served upon it And this improper sence Marrie by a figure of speech by vvhich the names of things that are like one another in some quality are given one unto another as Christ is called David Ezek. 34. 23. John Baptist Elias Mal. 4. 5. the Citty of Rome Babylon Rev. 17. 5. the Church of God Jerusalem Isay 62. 9. the Fathers for resemblance of his Ministers Sacraments in the New Testament to them in the Old are wont to give the name as of Preistes Levites to Pastours Deacons so of a Sacrifice to the Lords Supper and of an Altar to the Lords Table For these thinges are linked by nature in relation mutuall dependence as I may say one of another the Altar the Sacrifice the Sacrificers who serve the Altar that is Preistes and Levites Wherfore if the Fathers meant a very Altar in the proper sence to Sacrifice Christs body upon then must they meane also the Leviticall Preist-hood to serve in sacrificing of it But the Leviticall Preist-hood is gone Heb. 7. 11. they knew it neither did they call the ministrie of the Gospell so but by a figure Your Rhemists therfore doe abuse them in proving as by them that the Communion Table is called an Altar properly But us of the other side they doe abuse more by setting an Altar against a Common Table in such sort of speech as if we whose Churches have not a very Altar to kill our Saviour Christ sacrifice him upon it â—ad but a Common Table and prophane Communion board to eate meere bread upon A feate to make us odious in the eyes of men whom you would perswade that we discerne not the body of the Lord. Which your privy slander doth us open injury For we have not a Common but a Holy Table as both we call it esteem it not a prophane Communion board but the Lords Supper 1. Cor. 10. 16. 11. 23. wherein we receive the bread of
thankesgiving the Cup of blessing as the Apostles Doctrine and practise of the Fathers teach us your selves are guilty rather of feeding men with meere bread who doe take away the Cup of the New Testament in the bloud of Christ from the Christian people in stead of the blessed bread of the Sacrament doe give in your Masses meere bread indeed by your owne Confession the Common bread that goeth under the name of* Holy bread I would to God M. Hart you would thinke with your selfe even in your bed as the Prophet speaketh Psal. 4. 4. consider more deepely both the wicked abuses wherewith the Holy Sacrament of the Lords Supper is prophaned in your unholy Sacrifice of the Masse the treacherous meanes whereby your Masters Fellowes of the Colledge of Rhemes doe seeke to maintaine it Who being not able to prove it by the Scriptures either of the Altar or of the cleane offring the principall places whereon their shew standeth they goe about to breed a good opinion of it in the hearts of the simple partly by discrediting us with falâ—e reproches partly by abusing the credit of the Fathers Which two kinds of profe doe beare the greatest sway through all your Rhemist Annotations By D. Willet in his Synopsis Papismi the 9. generall controversie part 2. Quest. 6. Error 54. where he brings in the Papists arguing thus for Altars Heb. 13. 10. We have an Altar of which they have no power to eate that serve at the Tabernecle That is the Altar whereon Christes body is offered Bellarm. Rhemist in hunc locum Answer The Apostle speaketh expresly of participation of the Sacrifice of Christes death as it is manifest in the two verses next following which is by a Christian faith and not in the Sacrament only whereof none can be partakers that remaine in the Ceremoniall observations of the Leviticall Sacrifices For the Apostle speaketh manifestly vers 12. of the suffering of Christ without the Gate Christ therfore is the Altar yea our Preist and Sacrifice too Further you abuse this place to prove your materiall Popish Altars which are many but the Apostle sayth we have an Altar speaking of one This exposition Richard Woodman a holy Martyr hath sealed that Christ is the true Altar whereon every true Christian ought to come and offer he proveth by the Conference of those two places of the Gospel Math. 5. 23. If thou bringest thy gift to the Altar remember that thy brother hath ought against thee c. Likewise Math. 18. where two or three are gathered in my name there am I in the middest Wheresoever then people are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the middest and where he is there is the Altar so that we may be bold to come offer our gift Fox p. 1991. Col. 2. By David Dickson who in his Short Explanation of the Epistle to the Hebr. c. 13. v. 10. p. 317. 318. writes thus We have an Altar c. Such as will eate of Jesus be partakers of him must beware to serve the Jewish Tabernacle by keeping on foot continuing the Ceremonies appertaynances annexed there unto such Feastes such Jubil es such Altars such sprinklings Holy water such Preists and vestimentes c. as Levi had He calleth Christ by the name of the Altar because Hee is the thing signified by the Altar by the Sacrifice and by she rest of the Leviticall Ceremonies Then 1. those Ordinances of Leviticall Service were figures of Christ some in one part some in another and Hee is the Accomplishment of them even the Truth of them ALL The true Tabernacle the true Preist the true Sacrifice the true Altar c. 2. Christes selfe is all the Altar that the Christian Church hath Our Altar is He only and nothing but hee the Apostle knoweth no other The same exposition upon this Text is given by M. Peter Smart in his Sermon at Durham July 27. 1628. And finally by King James himselfe who in his Paraphrase on the 6. of the Revel 9. v. determines thus I saw under the Altar the soules of the Martyrs which cryed with a loud voyce How long wilt thou delay ô Lord since thou art Holy true to revenge our blood For persecution it makes so great a number of Martyrs that the soules lying under the Altar to wiâ—t in the safegard of Jesus Christ who is the only Altar whereupon by whom it is only Lawfull for us to offer the Sacrifice of hearts and lipps to wit our humble prayers to God the Father did pray their blood did cry to Heaven crave at the hands of their Father a just revenge of their torments upon the wicked Thus all these with sundrie other writers of our Church together with all Protestant writers whatsoever unanimously interpret this Text of Christ himselfe not of Communion Tables and Altars Therfore it proves not that the Communion Table is or may be called an Altar though the Fathers some times improperly stile it so contrary to the Scripture language yet not in that sence or for any such end as the Papists and our Popish Innovators doe to bring in the Sacrament and Sacrifice of the Altar and set upp Masse againe If any object in the second place as the Coale from the Altar pag. 13. 14. 15. 16. 27. 28. 29. strangly doth and before him M. Shelford that the Lords Table may be called an Altar yea the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar though the Scripture never stile either of them thus First Because the Fathers some times phrase them so 2. Because the Statetude of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. râ—vived by El. c. 2. termes the Sacrament of the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar 3. Because the Common Prayer Booke in 2. Ed. 6. Anno 1549. cals the Lords Table promiscuously both by the name of a Table an Altar 4. Because our Godly Martyrs as John Fryth Archbishop Crammer John Lambert John Philpot Bishop Latimer and Bishop Ridley call both the Sacrament of the Lords Supper The Sacrament of the Altar the Communion Table an Altar as their words cited in the Coale from the Altar p. 16. 17. testify from whence that Pamplâ—t concludes thus So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar on all sides acknowledged neither the Prince or Prelates the Preist or people dissenting from it some of those termes being further justified by the Statute Law To the first of these Reasons I answer First that Christ and his Apostles never phrase the Lords Table an Altar but the Lords Table the Lords Supper the Communion of Christs body blood we ought therfore to stile them so as the Scripture doth 1. Cor. 10. 11. to call them by those names the Scripture gives them which are proper genuine since we ought to speake as Christ and God hath taught us
of these ordinances 2. The Fathers and primative Christians for at least 230. yeares after Christ had no Altars of which more before therfore not the name of Altars or of the Sacrament of the Altar 3. The Fathers usually and properly stile the Communion Table the Lords table the Holy table the Table c. and the Sacrament iâ—selfe the Lords Supper the Sacrament of Christs body and blood the Eucharist and the like that properly and those who phrase the Table an Altar or the Sacrament the Sacrament of the Altar doe it only improperly and figuratively as they stile faith and our hearts the Altar of a Christian either in relation to Christ himselfe who is our only true Altar whose body blood death are my stically represented to us in this Sacrament or in respect the Sacrifice of his body for us on the Altar of the Crosse is here spiritually exhibited or by reason of the spirituall Sacrifices of prayer and prayse and oblations of Charity for the poores releife that are there offred up when the Sacrament is received or because it puts us in mind of Christ our Altar in Heaven who must consecrate all our Services Sacrifices spirituall oblations make them acceptable to his Father In these regards only as some of our Martyrs Bishop Jewell D. Fulke D. Reynolds M. Deane Nowell D. Willet and M. Cartwright observe the Fathers sometime stile the Lords Table an Altar or out of an allusion to the Jewish Altars and oblations which were but types of Christ and his sacrifice on the Crosse here represented to us but never truly or properly Therfore their Antiquities prove it not to be an Altar nor yet the Sacrament to be the Sacrament of the Altar or that it may properly be so termed 4. Though the Fathers phrase the Communion Table an Altar or the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar yet this is no argument that we may now lawfully doe it or that they did well in it For when they used this manner of speech the Sacrifice of the Masse Masse-Preists with other idolatâ—ous popish trash was not knowne nor heard in the world neither were there any to be scandalized with those phrases or to wrest them to such ill ends purposes as since they have been There were then no Papists to be hardned encouraged in their popish Superstition no Protestants to be scandalized or drawen to dreame of Masse and Masse Preists againe as now there are Therfore they prochance might lawfully use these termes though we may not And yet these termes speeches of the Fathers the Papists have formerly derived and still defend justify all the abominations of their Masse their altars Masse Preistes massing vestments Cringes Ceremonies which shewes that the Fathers might have better spared then used them since all this hurt but no good at all hath proceeded from them if we should now after so long a discontinuance disuse of these Titles and our exploding of them as savouring to much of Popery and Iudaisme and tending to foment them should reassume them it would not only harden the Papists in all their idolatries errors superstitions concerning the Masse and altars wherein they differ for Protestants but likewise cause many to revolt from our religion unto Popery and others scandalized with these termes either wholly to seperate from our Church as false superstitious Popish or else to continue in it with wounded troubled scrupulous coÌ„sciences dejected discontented spirits drive them almost cleane away from the Sacrament of the Lords Supper as late experience to apparantly manifests So that this fiâ—â—t reason is of no great moment to prove what is objected To the second and maine reason I answer 1. That the Statute of 2. Ed. 6. was made in the very infancie of reformation whence M. Rastall in his Abridgment of Statutes annexeth this observation to it But note the time of the first making of this Statute which was before that the Masse taken away when the opinion of the reall presence was dot removed from us The language therfore of this Act made thus before the Masse was taken away or the grosse opinion of Transubstantiation removed from us is not much to be regarded much lesse insisted on though the Coale from the Altar doth principally relie upon it 2. I answer that this Act doth not call the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar nor the Lords table an Altar but rather the contrary For the Tittle of it is this An Act against such persons as shall unreverently speake against the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar c. And the body of the Act runs thus As in the most comfortable Sacrament of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar and in Scripture marke it THE SVPPER AND TABLE OF THE LORD THE COMMVNION AND PARTAKING OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST c. So that the name which the Statute gives it is only the Sacrament used 8. times together in this Act and the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ thus so stiled and this clause commonly called the Sacrament of the Altar is not a Title given it by the Statute but by the Preistes and vulgar people who then usually called it so and added only by way of explanation as their usuall terme not the Parleaments and being omitted in the ensuing parts clauses of this Act which termes the Sacrament the Sacrament of Christes body and blood with out this terme of explination which this Act expresly declares to be no Title given it in or by the Scripture which ever calls it the Supper and Table of the Lord the Communion and partaking of the body and blood of Christ but only by the vulgar who were then either for the most part Papists or Popishly affected neither Masse nor Transubstantiation nor Altars being then abolished as they were shortly after 3. This Act calls not the Communion Table an Altar the sole thing now in question but the Table of the Lord therfore it makes nothing for Altars or the stiling of the Communion Table an Altar 4. No Act either in King Edwards Raigne or Queen Elizabeths or since her dayes this alone excepted calls the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but only the Sacrament the Holy Sacrament c. this Title therfore being omitted in all other Acts mentioned here as the phrase of the vulgar not the Parleaments and used only in the Statute of 1. Mar. Parl. 1. c. 3. when Masse and Altars were againe set up and revived but in no other Act of any of our Protestant Princes but this can be no plea at all for us now to call the Lords Table an Altar or his Supper the Sacrament of the Altar but rather argues the contrary that we should for beare to stile them thus because the Parleament in
all Acts since concerning this Sacrament or divine Service except only in Queen Maries dayes hath done it though the Coale from the Altar falsely affirmes the contrary that some of their Termes are further justified by the Statute Law but never proves it neither in truth can doe it 5. Whereas the Coale from the Altar page 16. 17. objectes that this Statute of â— E. 6. c. 1. repealed by Queen Mary in the first Parliament of her Raigne was afterwards revived by Queen Elizabeth both the head body and every branch and member of it 1. Eliz. c. 1. So that we have a Sacrifice and an Altar and a Sacrament of the Altar an all sortes acknowledged c. I answer that there is in this a double mistake 1. in the Statute itselfe in citing 1. Eliz. c. 1. which speakes nothing of the Sacrament or Common Prayer nor of this Act of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. for 1. Eliz. c. 2. so that it seemes the Author of this Coale who stiles S. Edward Cooke S. Robert Cooke makes M. Plowden a Iudge stiled him Judge Plowden though he were never any Iudge a Professed Papist was some busie pragmaticall Divine who tooke upon him to cite interpret Statutes in which he had no skill or else borrowed his Law from others as ignorant as himselfe perchance from M. Shelford who quotes or rather misquotes these two Acts. 2. In the thing for which he cites it for the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. doth neither mention nor revive this Act of 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. though M. Rastall and some others have thought the contrary as is cleare by the words themselves whereon they ground their opinion Where as at the death of King Ed. 6. there remained one uniforme order of Common service and administration of the Sacraments set forth in a Booke intitled The Booke of Common Prayer c. the which was repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary to the great decay of the due honour of God and discomfort to the professours of the truth of Christes Religion Be it further enacted by the authority of this present Parleament that the sayd estatute of Repeale every thing therein conteyned ONLY CONCERNING THE SAYD BOOKE and the service administration of Sacraments rites Ceremonies conteyned or appointed in or by the sayd Booke shal be voyd and of none effect from and after the Feast of the Nativity of S. John Baptist next coming that the sayd Booke with the order of service and of the administration of the Sacraments rites and Ceremonies with the alteracions and additions therein added and appointed by this estatuteâ— shall stand and be from and after the sayd Feast in full force and effect according to the tenor and effect of this estatute any thing in their foresayd estatute of repeale to the contrary not with standing And in the end of this Actâ— this clause is inserted and be it further enacted by authority aforesayd that all Lawes Statutes Ordinances whereby an other service administration of Sacraments or Common prayer is limited established or set forth to be used with in this Realme or any other the Queenes Dominions or Countries shall from henceforth be utterly void of none effect By which it is most apparant First that this Act repeales the statute of repeale 1. Mariae only as to the Booke of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacraments confirmed by Parliament 5. 6. Ed. 6. no further therfore not as to the Statute of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. which hath no relation to that Booke and so remaines unrevived and still repealed by this Act as before 2. That it revives not any Statute for Common Prayer or Sacraments formerly repealed but the Common Prayer Booke itselfe that not as it was at first published when it had the name of Altar Sacrament of the Altar in it but as it was purged from these termes and testified in 5. 6. Ed. 6. with such alterations and additions as were annexed to it by this Act. So as it neither revives the head body and every branch of 1. Ed. 6. c. 1. nor yet the Altar the Sacrifice or Sacrament of the Altar nor any of these phrases as the Author of the Coale from the Altar ignorantly and falsely affirmes nor any other Statute concerning Common Prayer no not 2. Ed. 6. c. 1. or 5. 6. Ed. 6. c. 1. which are expresly repealed by the last clause of this Act the whole Statute concerning Divine service and Sacraments now on foote because they prescribed another Booke of Common Prayer service and administration of the Sacrament then this which this Statute confirmes which enacts that the sayd Booke c. with the Alterations and additions therein added and appointed by this estatute shall stand and be in full force and effect not by vertue of any former Law but according to the tenor effect of this Statute From all which I may safely conlude against the Coale that neither the head nor body nor any branch or member of 1. Eliz. 6. c. 1. is revived by 1. Eliz. c. 2. and so that we have neither a Sacrifice nor an Altar nor a Sacrament of the Altar on any side much lesse on all sides acknowledged as he falsely vaunts that both the Princes Prelates Preists people have disâ—ented from it that none of the sayd termes have been further justified by the Statute Lawes And so this maine authority on which he M. Shelford built is point blanke against them makes nothing at all for them and over throwes their cause To the 3. reason I answer that true it is in the first Booke of Common Prayer set forth in King Edwards dayes An. 1549. the Communion Table was called an Altar as is evident by the Booke itselfe and the 2. reason why the Lords bord should rather be after the forme of a Table then an Altar Fox Acts Monuments p. 1211. the Altars themselves being not then removed by publike authority but when the Altars the next yeare following for no reformation can be perfited at first but by degrees were removed by the King and Counsells speciall commaund Communion Tables placed in their Roomes not to humor M. Calvin but upon good and Godly considerations and the 6. reasons compiled by the King and Counsell which the Bishops were to publish to the people for their better satisfaction and instruction registred by M. Fox the very names of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar were by authority of Parleament 5. 6. E. 6. c. 1. expunged out of the Common Prayer Booke and the names of Lords Table Gods board Communion Table Holy Table Communion Sacrament Sacrament of Christs body blood Lords Table only retained inserted in its steed which Booke being afterwards altered amended revided by Act of Parliament 1. Eliz. c. 2. the names Altar Sacrament of the againe purpose omitted and those other Phrases
expressions only retained The names therfore of Altar and Sacrament of the Altar being thus particularly purposely professedly damned expunged out of the Booke of Common Prayer by the whole Church of England in two severall Acts of Parleament under two most religious Princes never thought meet to be used or reinserted since is a most convincing retirated parleamentary resolution that the Communion Table is not an Altar much lesse an High Altar as some now phrase it that the Lords Table ought not to be stiled an Altar nor the Lords Supper the Sacrament of the Altar else why should these Titles be thus exploded and that no Orthodox member of the Church of England ought to stile them thus much lesse to write plead in defence of these their Titles as these new Champions doe but to call them by those proper names which the Scripture the Common Prayer Booke these two statutes give them To the 4. reason I answer First that neither of all the Martyrs quoted in the Coale p. 14. 15. 16. doth call either the Lords Table an Altar or the Sament the Sacrament of the Altar True it is Bishop Latimer sayth that the Doctours call the Lords Table an Altar in many places in a figurative and improper sence Bishop Ridley in answer to that place that Bishop White objected out of Cyrill sayth that S. Cyrill meaneth by this word Altar not the Jewish Altar but the Table of the Lord but themselves never call it an Altar but a Table only they being so farre from it that Bishop Ridley writ a speciall Booke de Confringendis Altaribus and he and Bishop Latimer had a chiefe hand both in casting Altars out of our Churches and Chapples in expunging the very name of them out of the Common Prayer Booke Neither of the other Martyrs so much as mention the Altar in the words there â—ited M. Philpot expreâ—â—ly resolves that the Altar meant by Heb. 13. 10. is not the Communion Table or materiall Altar but Christ himselfe And as they stile not the Communion Table an Altar so not the Lords supper the Sacrament of the Altar For John Fryth only sayth they examined me touching the Sacrament of the Altar the terme his persecuting Examiners gave it not he who mentions it as their Interrogatorie not his answer So John Lamberts words I make yow the same Answer that I have done unto the Sacrament of the Altar relates to his adversaries Articles which so stiled it not to his owne voluntarie answer which must be made of and according to the question demanded M. Philpot only sayth that the old writers doe sometimes call the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ among other names which they ascribe thereunto the Sacrament of the Altar but he calls it not so himselfe Archbishop Crammer in Henry the 8 dayes before he was thorougly resolved against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation of which he was at first an over earnest defender as himselfe confessed at last Take no offence at the terme of Sacrament of the Altar but afterwards he did not using it in his writings and so farre was he sâ—em calling the Communion Table an Altar that he was the cheife agent in casting ouâ— Altars and expunging the very name of Altar out of the Common Prayer Booke his name being subscribed to the Letter to Bishop Ridley for the removing of Altars and setting up Tables in their places and the 6. reasons why the Lords Board should rather be after the forme of a Table then of an Altar condemning both Altars and their very name in some sort sent to Bishop Ridley which that Letter being approved if not compiled by him So that all these Reasons authorities wherewith the Coale from the Altar is principally kindled and enâ—lamed are now quite extinguished upon â—â—â—full examination neither prove that the Communion Table is an Altar or may be so stiled or that the Lords Supper is or may be phrased the Sacrament of the Altar but the contrary Since therfore it is evident by all these authorities and reasons notwithstanding these Objections that the Communion Table is no Altar and that the Church State and writers of England have abandoned all Altars and their very name together with them by which Altars as Philippus Eilbrachius writes in his Epanorthosis viae Compendariae Neomagi 1633. c. 18. p. 143. sect 7. the Crosse of Christ is overturned and therfore they are to be taken away the Orthodox Churches doing well in removing them and restoring Tables at which the Papistes themselves dare not deny but that Christ and his Apostles after him used to Celebrate his Supper The objection fals quite to ground and I may thus invertit Communion Tables are no Altars neither ought they to be stiled or reputed Altars Therfore they ought not to be placed Altar-wise against the East end of the Quire in such manner as the late Popish Altars as is pretended stood But admit Communion Tables to be Altars then it will hence necessarily followâ— that they ought to stand in the middest of the Church or Quire because Altars anciently ever stood so bâ—th among the Jewes Gentiles Pagon Greekes Romans and Christians to as I have largely manifested Thus they stood in Durands time Anno 1320. even in Popish Churches thus were they situated in ancient times in all the Greeke Churches and so are they yet placed at this very day as Bishop Jewell hath proved out of Durandus Gentianus Herveticus and other Authors Yea thus have some Altars stood heretofore in England For the Altar of Carmarthen was placed in the body of the Church Erkenwalde the 4. Bishop of London was layd in a sumptuous shrine in the East part of Paules above the High Altar and some other of our Bishops have been buried above the High Altar Therfore it stood not at the very East end of the Church and these Prelates were very presumptuous in taking the wall of the High Altar and setting their very Tombes and rotten Carcases above Christs mercy seat and Chaire of Estate 〈…〉 of their present successors may be credited who as they will have no â—eaâ—es at the upper end of the Chancle for feare any man should sit above Christ or chekmate with God almighty some thinkes they should suffer no shrines or Tombes especially of Bishops who should give good example of humility to others to be there erected for feare any mans rotten carcase should lie inshrined above them If then our Tables must be situated as all or most Altars anciently have been till with in these few yeares they must then be placed in the middest of the Quire or Chancell because Altars have there been usually placed as the premises abundantly evidence And these ensuing Testimonies will proveâ— lexondâ— control Sigismund the Monke in his Chronicon Augustinum scholasticum Anno 1483. pars 1. c. 1. records That in the ancient Cathedrall Church of
last clause of this Rubricke relates only to all the Preists and Deacons receiving with the Minister not to the Sacraments administration by the Minister for that ought to be every Sunday without intermission Thus was the Sacrament dayly administred in every Cathedrall and Collegiate Church anciently and in Queen Elizabeths dayes And so it ought by Law to be now And this was the reason why Second Service for the Communion was read every Sunday and Holy-day at the Lords Table in those Churches because they had a Communion on those dayes But now the Substance of the Communion is quite omitted and discontinued and not so much as looked after by our Bishoppes and Cathedrall men and the Ceremony to witâ— the use of reading second service at the Table now foâ—â—ooâ—h at the High Altar as they call it only retained and urged Which ought not to be read there by Law as I have manifested unlesse there be a Commnion and then only at 〈◊〉 Lords Table as the Rubricke in the Communion the Queens Injunctions and 28. Canon prescribe not at an Alta. Our Bishops therefore must now either pull downe their High Altars in their Cathedrall and Collegiate Churches and administer the Sacrament in them every Sunday and Holyday at the Table and the standing in the middest not 〈◊〉 Quire where all may heare not at the upper end where 〈◊〉 can â—eare what 's read as in Paules and other Cathedrals 〈◊〉 the Vergers by holding up their Verges are appointed to give notice to the Cheristers and others when to say AMEN 〈◊〉 that they heare not what is read as the Common Prayer-Booke injoynes them Or else give over their reading of the Second Service at their High Altars or Lords Tables situated Altarwise reading it only in their Pewes appointed for that purpose as they do in Parish Churches else they may be lawfully indicted fined and imprisoned for it as egregious violâ—ters of the statute of 1â— Eliz. c. 2. and of the Common Prayer that they seeme so much to stand upon QVESTION V. The 5 Question I shall propose is this What Law or Canon is there for the building of Churches and Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle or Quire at the East end of them Statute or Canon of our Church and State J know not any and for pract se it hath beene otherwise The Temple of Ierusalem and its Sanctuary flood otherwise And the Iewish Synagogues anciently and now were built round or in an Oual manner as was the Great Temple built by Helena and Constantine the great over the Sepulcher at Ierusalem The famous Church of Tyre built by Paulinus Bishop of that city was otherwise situated For the Sermon made in the prayse thereof which fully discribes it informes us That the great Porch of the Church was at the East part of it reaching very high EAST-WARDS unto the Sunne-beames and that there was a seperation with great distance betweene the Sanctuary or Temple it selfe and this Porch The Sanctuary therefore being a great distance from the Porch and the Porch standing thus Eastwâ—rds It is certaine that the Chancle or Quire of this Church stood either in the middest or West end of it not at the East in the middest whereof the same Sermon informes us the Altar stood The Coliars strange glosse to evade this direct aâ—thority p. 53. That this Altar stood along the Easterne Wall of this Chancle which may well be interpreted to be in the middle of the Chancle in reference to the North and South is a direct forgery contrary to the words of this Sermon which sayth thâ—â— the Porch stood Eastward and the Sanctuary a great distance from it in the middest of which the Altar stood So as it could not possibly stand along the East wall or end of the Church being so farre remote from and beyond the Porch which stood Eastward Since this time the Churches as I have else-where manifested have been diversly situated according to the conveniency of the place Some being round or Ouall Others square Others standing North and South as 〈◊〉 the Savoy Church with divers of the Kings owne Chapples And the Chapples of Sundrie Colledges Hospitals Noblemen and Gentlemen And if this be not sufficient the very late Popish Chapple at Somersett-house with the new Church in Court Garden which as it stands not now perfectly East and West so at first the Chancle of it stood towards the West part Which some Prelates without Law Canon and reason I know not upon what superstitious overweaning conceit commanded to be altered and transformed to the other end to the great expence of the builder the hindrance and deformity of that good worke which yet must not be used for a Church because not consecrated by a Bishops coâ—â—ring white Rochet Which consecration I have manifested to be against Law utterly exploded as a Romish Relique If then there be no Law or Canon for the building of Churches or Chapples East and West or placing the Chancle in the East end of Churches as is apparent there is not There cannot then be either Law or Canon for the placing or rayling 〈◊〉 of our Communion-Tables against the East wall of Church or Chancles Altarwise Being the end for which J moved the Question And as there is no Law for this situation of the Table or Chancle so as litle Antiquity For in Durantus his time one of the latest authorities Bishâ—p Iewel quotes who lived not above 400 yeares since the Altar stood in the middest of the Quire and not close against the wall as is evident not only by the words Bishop Iewell â—ites but by other passages By the Altar sayth he our heart is understood which is in the MIDDEST of the body ficut Altare in MEDIO ECCLESIAE as the Altar is in the MIDDEST of the Church Moreover he informes us that in consecrating the Altar the Bishop septies Altare CIRCVIT goeth ROUND ABOUT the Altar 7 times which he could not doe stood it Altarwise as now close to the Easterno wall to signify that â—e ought to take care for all and be vigilant for all which is signified by CIRCUITUM by his compassing or going round the Altar And if this be not sufficient out of Isiodor Amalarius Fortunatus Rabanus Maurus and others fore-cited he thus defines a Quire Chorus est multitudo exsacris collâ—cta dictus Chorus quód initio in modum CORONAE CIRCUMARAS starent ita psallerent Enough to Answer the Coliars idle euation of his authority This ancient definition of a Quire is since repeated and approved by Durantus Bartholomeus Gavantus and other late Popish writers Enough to prove that how ever Romish or English Altars have been lately situated against the East wall of the Quire yet ab initio non fuit sic it hath been but of late times so even as the Papists themselves confesse Hence our Learned Dr. â—ulke
it selfe is neither 3. Thirdly it was only a turning with the face towards the Temple Not any genuflâ—ction or chringing to the Temple But this bowing of our Novellers is not simply towards but likewise to the Altar as Reeue D. Pocklington acknowledge Now bowing to and towards the Altar are in some respects two distinct things Therefore this worshipping towards the Temple no warrant for any bowing to a Table or Altar 4. Fourthly this worshipping towards the Temple is taken two manner of wayes in scripture Improperly and Properly Improperly for a praying in some private place not only out of the Temple but even out of the sight and veiwe of it Thus Daniel even in Babylon prayed 3 times a day towards Ierusalem Dan. 6. 10. And so did all the Iewes where ever they were whether in captivity exile or their owne Country 1. King 8. 30. 35. 38. 44. 48. and other fore-cited texts Properly For worshipping or praying in the Temple as 1. King â— 29. 30. 33. 42. 2. Chron 6. 20 21. 27. 26. 29. Take it in either sence and it will not avayle our Novellers David in his private devotions even out of the sight and veiwe of the Temple did worship or pray towards it Ergo we at our coming in and going out of the Church when we see the Table or High Altar must bow downe to or towards it or David did worship God towards that is in his Temple Ergo they must bow and worship to or towards the Altar or Table for in them or either of them they cannot locally worship God unlesse they will make new formes of Altars and Tables and be mewed up within them by â—ike Popish authority are but frenticke ridiculous consequents Yet the best that can be drawne â—â—om these texts to justify these Ceremonies 5. Fiftly the Iewes had good warrant and ground to worship and pray towards the Temple For 1. First they had a divine premission and authority if not a precept so to doe 2. Secondly a promise from God himselfe to heare graâ—â—â— their prayers made towards the Temple Both which appeares by the forequoted texts of the Kings Chronicles Daniel and the Psalmes Viz 1 King 8. 39. 30. 33. 35. 38. 42. 44. 48. 2 Chron. 6. 20. 21. 24. 26. 29. 34. 38. Dan. l. 10. Psal. 5. 7. Psal. 28. 2. Psal 138. 2. But we have no such permission or precept to bow to or â—â—wards Altars or Tables but a direct precept against it which many read at the Altar Table to witt the second Commaundement Exod. 20. 5. Thou shalt not bow downe to them nor worship them extending as well to Tables as to Images Idols or any other creatures though they presently breake it by bowing unto the Table or Altar Neither have we any promise of reward or of answering our prayers made to us for this cringing to Altars and Tables Their practise thereof warrants not ours 3. Thirdly the Temple was a speciall and lively type of our Saviour Christ himselfe as Divines generally accord and that in many respects too tedious here to mention Wherefore the Iewes were thus to worship towards the Temple to teach them alwayes to looke forwards towards Christ which was to come in the flesh as to their only Sanctuary helpe and refuge in all conditions the only Mediatour and intercessour to whom they must pray the only High Preist Sacrifice Oblation and Altar they must depend on typified by the Temple but never towards Synagogues Now these reasons of their worshipping towards the Temple make nothing for the cringing and congewing to Communion Tables High Altars 4. Fourthly the Temple was the place of Gods speciall presence which God had chosen for himselfe to dwell in and to put his name there where all the Isralites were every yeare by speciall commaund from God to meet to worship him and this among others was one cause of their praying towards it Deut. 12. 11. 12. 1 King 7. 29. 30 c. Psal. 122. 3. 4. But our Innovatours cannot produce one Syllable in Scripture to prove that the High Altar or Communion Table is the speciall place of Gods presence the place which he hath chosen to place his name there and to dwell in Sure the Scriptures informes us that VVHERESOEVER two or three Mat. 18. 20. are gathered together in Christs name there is he in the MIDDEST of them And thereupon commaunds us To pray EVERY where c. 1 Tim. 2. 8. because God is now every where alike present by his Grace Therefore no ground have they to worship or bow either to or towards it as they doe 5. Finally the Jewes whether they were East West North or South from the Temple or it from them worshipped and prayed towards it But our Innovatours as they will have all Altars stand Eastward so they will terminate and direct their worship only towards the East and Altars standing towards the East These texts therefore with Davids worshipping towards the Temple on which they principally relie make nothing at all for the bowing to Altars and Tables which no Fathâ—r or Orthodox expâ—siter that I have seen ever deduced from the Scriptures Yea but if these doe not avayle them Mr. Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. acquaints us with some others that will as Psal. 99. 5. Exalt yee the Lord our God and worship at his footstoole Eâ—go the first reverence that we must make when wee come into the Church is to bow to the Lords Table which Saint Paul calls the Lords Altar and to worship God towards it Oh sencelesse Divinity and childish Logicke Who ever read of such distâ—acted inferences Had the Psalmist sayd we will worship at the Altar Or had this footestoble here mentioned been the Altar or this worship a meere bowing of the bâ—dy towards the Arke or to it and not a praying or sacrificing only before or at it there had been some shaddow of worshipping that is of praying and sacrificing to God at the Altar but not of bowing to or towards it much lesse to or towards the Lords Table which is neither an Altar noâ— hâ—th any Analogie with the Altar nei her is it so tearmed by Saint Paul as this Dâ—eamer doteth as I have else where proved at large But since we read not in Scripture that David ever worshâ—pped or bowed to or towards the Altar And this sâ—o esâ—â—â—le here by his owne confeâ—â—on was the Arcke but by Davids owne expâ—sition Gods holy mountaine oâ— Hâ—ll Zâ—on Psal 99. 9. And this worshipping not a bowâ—ng but prayer Therefore here is not the least countenance for this Ceremonie Yea but if these texts fall shâ—rt yet others come fully home as Exod. 12. 27. Then the peopl bowed themselves and worshipped Ergo Potlid Therefore we must bow downe and worshâ—p the Alâ—ar or Communion Table Had thâ—se either bâ—wed themselves to or towards the Altar the inference had been somewhat tolerable though
the Table Altar not only before the Pulpit the FoÌ„t the Bible the Common-prayer Booke the Paten the Chalice themselves but likewise before the consecrated bread and wine the Sacrament of Christs Supper and the Lord Christ himselfe to whome they give no such congies such solemne adoration reverence genuflexion honour and respect If so then it is almost execrable and abâ—minable Jf not then let them informe me How that which is least bowed to worshipped or adored is most reverenced and respected then that which is not bowed to or honoured with any such genuflection Or how themselves can preach and 〈◊〉 that the name Iesus is more honourable venerable great and glorious then any other of our Saviours â—ames because it is and ought to be most cringed capped and bowed to of all others Till all these Questâ—ons are resolved J shall desire them to suspend this their capitall reason The 2 Reason The second reason for this Ceremonie is Because the Altar and Table are Christs mercy-seate and the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice there made and presented to thâ— Trintry So Mr. Shelford Preist here turned Masse-Preist to present the memory of the everlasting Sacrifice to the holy Trinity opened so to Christ himselfe that made it as if he himselfe had forgotten it or were not able of himselfe to present its memory to his Father without a Masse-Preists helpe which Lawe Giles Widdowes thus seconds The Church is the place of Gods presence The Communion-Table the Chaire of State of the Lord Iesus and his theifest place of presence in our Church Where his PREISTS SACRIFICE THE LORDS SUPPER to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes Where we sind a resolution of my first Question What is the end of our Novellers writing preaching and contesting for altars and Preists to wit that we may have a Sacrifice againe And what Sacrifice is that The Sacrifice of the Lords Supper faith Widdowes The Sacrament or Sacrifice of the Altar sayth She ford page 2. 19. And what kind of Sacrifice is this A commemorative wâ—â—â—e Shâ—â—ford and the Colier And no other but so Yea quoth Widdowes a propitiatorie sacrifice likewise to reconcile us to God offended with our dayly sinnes And so we have now not only Altars and Preists but the Sacrifice of the Masse it selfe in its ful latitude both as Commemorative and Propitiatory in point of doctrine in Bookes laâ—ely printed by Authority and not yet called in How soone we may have all of them as wee have Altars Preists and a commemorative Sacrifice too in many places in point of practise I leave to others to determine This being made the reason why wee bow to Tables and Altars because they are Christs mercy seat and the memory of the everlasting sacrifice c. is there made and presented to the Trinity This reason I have sufficiently disproved already in proving the Table and Altar to be no mercy Seate and the Lords Supper no Sacrifice Commemorative or Propitiatory I shall therefore first of all desire them to prove what they thus affirâ—e both by Scripture and reason Secondly when they have done this then to make this appeare in like maner by Scripture or solid arguments drawne from it or at least by Fathers and Councels that Christians are bound to bow to Christs mercy seate or to the place where the memory of his Sacrifice is offered The Iewes never doing it to the one nor the Primitive Churches to the other Till this be done I shall demurre upon this Reason The third Reason The 3. ReasoÌ„ is this The Tible Altar are a signe of the place wheâ—e our Saviour was most dishonoured and câ—ucified Therefore wee must bow unto them So Giles Widdowes reasons in a Booke licensed at Oxford by some learned Dâ—ctours I answer First that this is a plaine untruth for they are neither a signe of Ierusalem Golgatha the High-Preist hall or the Crosse. Secondly if a truth yet unable to VVarrant this Ceâ—â—monie For what Scripture reason or Authour is there to just fie that men ought to bow at the signe of the place where our Saviour was dispised dishonoured and crucified Thirdly if this reason be good then these Novellers must bow at and to the signes of Ierusalem which hang up in every Citie or to or towards these Tauerne Posts which these bowers haunt much night and day to make them nod bow and reele the better to their Altars where the signe of Ierusalem hangs For they are properly the signe of the place where our Saviour was most dispised and crucified then the Table or Altar Then likewise they must bow to every Mappe of Ierusalem of the holy Land for they are signes of that place too Much more to Jerusalem and Golgatha themselves to which I wish these Cringers would all travell in pilgrimage that so they might have the sight of the place it selfe to encourage them in this their bowing which is better and more moving then the bare signe of it Fourthly this perchance may make something for the adoring of Crucifixes and the Crosse because though they are no signes of the place where Christ was dispised and crucified yet they are signes of that on which he was dispised and crucified whereas the Table or Altar is a signe of neither So that the Papists if any shall give him thankes for this reason The fourth Reason A fourth reason they produce in print is this Let us learne of our Mother Câ—urches for there our reverend Fathers the Prelates and others make there reverence to God on this wise both at their entry and returne VVherefore to follow their good and holy patterne we also are to doe the like both at our first coming in to Gods house and at our going out so Shelford in his Sermon of Gods house p. 20. and the Coale too p. 1. 2. 27. 64. And if I may judge this is the cheife if not the sole reason why most men use this Ceremony The Arch-Bishops both doe practise it for reasons best knowne to themselves and the Prebends Deanes and Cathedrall men with other Ministers and Câ—rates in Citty Court and Country to imitate and please the Bishoppes whose precepts and examples all are to obey and follow without any examination or demurre as these writers to witt the Colier in his Câ—ale pag. 2. Reeves in his Exposition of the Catechisme in the Common-prayer-Bâ—oke Dogmatize else wee shall soone finde a speedy dissolution both of church and State To this Reason then I answer First that Gods written Law not our Prelates examples no further thâ—â— warranted by Gods word Cor. 11. 1. is the only rule both of Minsters and peoples obedience in matters of faith Gal. 6. 16. Psal. 119. 9. 2 Pet. 1. 19. And it together with the the Lawes of the Realme and Canons confirmed by Acts of Parliament of which fort there are none now extant the only rule for them to follow in matters of
Ceremony Since therefore this bowing is neither commaunded by Gods Law nor any Statâ—te or Canon confirmed by Parliament and the Statute of 1. Eliz. c. 2. expresly prohibits all Rites and Ceremonies but such as are prescribed by Parliament in the Booke of Common-prayer as this is not the Bishoppes practise therefore or Cathedrall usage are no good arguments to perswade the practise of it Secondly God forbid that the Bishoppes practise should be the rules of mens obedience many of them living and doing things quite contrary to Christs precepts in all things Christ prohibites them both to be or called Gracious Lords Mat. 20. 25. 26. Lâ—ke 22. 25. 26. 1 Pet. 5. 1. 23. And they desire both to be Lords and to be so stiled of all men and style themselves so too He prohibits them all civill temporall Offices Iurisdiction and Dominion they ingrosse all into their hands He would have them be content only with one sword Ephes. 6. 17. to wit of the spirit the word of God and they in despite of him will not only chalenge and possesse but use and abuse both He commaunds them to be lowly and humble Matth. 11. 29. Col. 3. 12. And they studdy nothing else but to be pround and lofty He enjoynes them to be pittifull and mercifull even as he is mercifull Col. 2. 12. 13. Ephes. 4. 31. 32. Luke 6. 36. And they shew themselves altogether pittilesse and cruell He wils them to be patient and yet who more cholericke and angrie to be meeke and gentle yet who more insolent and inhumaine To be ready to pardon and forgive And yet who so dispitefull malicious or revengfull To be holy in all maner of conversation even as he is holy And yet who so prophane or in heart in life So malignant against purity holinesse and holy men as they To be apt to teach and yet who more unfitt or unwilling to preach then they To preach the word in season and out of season and that every day Vnde necesse est in singules ut ita dicam dies sementum facere ut ipsa saltem assiduitate doctrinae sermonem auditorum animi retinere possint S. Chrysestom l. 6. de sacer Tom. 5. Col. 471. Yet they will neither doe it themselves and silence all others who desire to doe it Having made almost a famine of Gods Word throughout out the Land Amos 8. 11. He presoribes them to â—sed his flocke Acts 20. 28. Ioh. 21. 15. 16. 17. Ezech. 36. 6. to 17. Ioh. 10. 1. c. Ia. 40. 1. 2. and they starue them To seeke his wandring sheepe and they runne from and looke not after them To be Pastors to them yet who such theeves and muâ—therers who not only fleece but kill sley devoure and sucke the very blood of their sheepe To comfort his people and speake comfortably to his inheritance yet who such causes of greife vexation oppression teares and anguish of heart unto them as they He commaunds them to be blamelesse yet who more â—candalous and blame-worthy Not selfewilled Yet who so violont wilfull and head strong in all their undertakings Not soone angry yet who more touchie or outragious No strikers Yet who strike more then they and that with both Swords with which they lay on like mad men almost in every place Not given to filthy lucre yet who more griping and covetous Not given to wine yet who love or follow it more then they Sober Yet who so Incivill Iust Yet who unjust oppressive or treacherous both in word and deede Temperaie Yet who more immoderate in all kind of pompe and luxurie Ruling well their owne houses Yet what houses or servants so unruly disorderly irreligious or prophane as theirs Men having a good report of all men Yet who so ill reported of as they Men holaing fast the faithfull word as they have been taught Yet who such Apostates from the truth and revolters from the established doctrine of the Church as they Men able and williug by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainesayers Yet who so unwilling if not unable to doe it as many of them God forbid then that their example should be our precedents J read in our learned Bale Scriptorum Brit. Cent. 9. c. 97. p. 756. See Bishop Whites Orthodox paragr 12. p. 63. in the life of Iohn White Bishop of Winchester whom he styles Antichristi Romani terrificus Minister Principum illusor animorum carnifex duplex periurus hypocrita qui rostris unguibus in regno Angliae restituere conatur omnes Antichristi Româ—ni tyranides idololatrias faetida impia dognita universa That as he changed his religion like a Weather-cocke with the times so he had this disticke bestowed upon him for his paines by Iohn Parkhurst Candidus es recte nec candidus es Rogitas cur Nomine candidus es Moribus niger es And may wee not now say the like of some of our Candid Prelates who like the Polypus change their colour with the Climate and can shift themselves out of one colour into another at their pleasure especially Blacke White Being sometimes all white in there surplesles anon all blacke in their gownes at other times speckled black and white in their Rotchets wearing their Shirt-sleeves as a Child once ignorantly toâ—d a Bishop over their gowne-sleeves Those who can thus easily change their garments from white to black c. can as easily alter their religion As some of their Predicâ—ssours have done Bishop Pilkington in his Exposition upon Aggeus chap. 1. verse 9. tells us of some Bishops here in England in Queen Maries dayes which some beginne to magnify who in one yeares space confirmed the pâ—eaching of the Gospell of Christ and pure Ministring of Gods SacrameÌ„ts the same men within the same yeare with the same impudent mouthes and blasphemous tongues brought in the Pope set up Jdols banished Christ and his holy Supper appointed for all men that will to receive it together tooke way his holy Gospell Table and Sacraments and placed by their Authority the Masse for one shaveling to eate up all and blesse the people with empty Chalice and burned his Preachers to fill their bellies I cannot say that some of our Bishops have in as short a time done the like or as much as this comes to Only this I dare say of some of them Qui color Albus erat nunc est contrarius albo That they have in a short time altered their colour for the worse and like the Albanes of whom Plinic writes growne black in their old age when as they were white in their youth contrary to the custome of all other people I shall therefore deny this reason to be of force and conclude with Iohn Parkhurst verses to England Anglia furcatis nimium ne fidito mitris Dic rogo num serus sum tibi praemonitur The fift Reason The fift reason is that I find in the learned
and reverend Prelate Dr. Thomas Morton Bishop of Durham in his Institution of the Sacrament Edit 2. London 1635. l. 6. c. 5. Sect. 15. p. 463. where I reade thus The like difference may be discerned between your maner of reverence in bowing towards the Altar for Adoration of the Eucharist only ours in bowing as well when there is no Eucharist on the Table as when there is which is not to the Table of the Lord but to the Lord of the Table to testify the Communion of all the faithfull Communicants there at even as the people of God did in adoring before the Arke his footstoole Ps. 99. 5. and 1. Chor. 28. 2. As Daniels bowing at prayer in Câ—aldâ—a looking towards the temple at Ierusalem where the Temple of Gods worship was Dan. 6. 10. And as Dauid would be knowne to have done Ps. 5. 7. I will worship toward the holy Temple Which words againe are repeated for failing Lib. 7. cap. 9. Sect 2. Pag 551. I ANSWER That I can hardly beleive that this addition to the second is Bishop Mortons owne but a tricke of Legerdemaine thrust in by some other without his privity with purpose to blemish this incomparable peece of his and draw a scandall upon him My Reasons are three First because his judgment practise formerly to my knowledge haue been otherwise in this particular and likewise in the point of bowing at the naming of Iesus And not aboue three monthes before this second Edition published â—e writ a letter to Dr. Daniel Featly wherein he declared his iudgment both against Altars and placing of Lords Tables Altar-wise and this Ceremony of bowing to or towards them Therefore I cannot belive his judgement and practice so soone altered unlesse there be such infection in Bishops Rotchets as to make them all turne-coates as it hath made most of them Secondly because the phrase and style are different from his savouring rather of some Disciple of Sheldfords or of Bishop Andrewes streine then his as the invention not to the Table but to the Lord of the Table c. evidenceth Thirdly because it is a contradiction to what himselfe professedly maintaines in other places against the Papists and in the words immediately foregoing as appeares by these two particulars First the Bishop in the words immediatly preceding this addition writes thus That the Table of the Lord anciently stood IN THE MIDST OF THE CHANCLE so that they might COMPASSE IT ROUND This he proves in the margeâ—t by Eusebius Eccles. Hist. l. 10. c. 4. Forecited By Coccius Tom. 2. Tract de Altar Out of Athanasius in the life of Antonie who writes thus Altare Domini multorum multitudine CIRCUMDATUM By Chrysostom l. 6. de Sacerdotio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where the Preists are said to staÌ„d in a circle about the Altar By Dionysius Areopogita Ecclesiast Hierarch c. 3. Pontifex quidem in MEDIO ALTARI colâ—ocatur CIR CUNSTANT autem eum Soli cum Sacerdotibus Ministri Selecti By Augustine de verbis Domini Sermo 46. Mensa ipsius est illa in MEDIO constituta Concluding thus These â—estimonies verifie the same assertion of Dr. Fulke against Gregory Morton c. 17. The Table stood so that men might stand ROUND ABOUT IT Then comes in this addition which begins thus All this notwithstanding you are not to thinke that wee doe hereby to oppose the Appellation of Preist Altar or yet the new situaâ—ion thereof in our Church as convenient and for order more decent c. Where the Bishop is made to thwart both himselfe and the Primtive Church in maintaining the placing of Lords-Tables Altar-wise against the East-end of the Church to be for use as convenient and for order more decent then the situation of them in the midst A thing which the Bishop who throughout his Booke pleades only for Antiquitie against Popish Noveltie would never doe Since in the very Table of his Bookeâ— â—he hath this Reference It was so anciently placed as to stand round about it And here by the way I cannot but observe the desperate impudency and sottishâ—es of the times wherein we live Bishop Iewell and Dr. Fulke from the forecited Authorities in Queen Elizabeth dayes prâ—ved and affirmed that Communion-Tables in the primitive Church stood in the Midst of the Quire or Chancle so as-men might stand round about them Bishop Morton here in his learned Booke from the same authorities positive affirmes the like and that in both the authorized Editions of his Booke The first An. 1631. and the second Edition Anno 1635. Yet notwithstanding these learned Prelates judgements in their most judicious eleberate writings so oft and so newly printed with publike approbation Dr. Pocklington in his Sunday no Sabbath and a nameless Colier in his Cole from the Altar two ridiculous idle Pamphlets within one yeare after even by publike license too must be set up to affront these learned Bishops together with the Bishop of Lincolnes Letter to the Vicar of Grantham and all the writers of our Church in this other particulars too that Altars and Lords-Tables stood not in the Midst of the Quire in the primitive Church And that these authorities these graue Bishops cite to prove it are impertinent and no wayes evidence that they contest for Good God what age ever heard of such contradictions and confusions in print at the same time in the same Church by men of the same religion and both by Authority Certainly the Licensers of these Bookes and Prelates that give way to them deserve to be made examples for it to posterity for shaming both our Church our Religion and making us laughing stockes to all the world by authorizing such contradictions idle Romish Pamphlets But to returne to the point 2ly The Bishop in the immediate foregoing words writes p. 462. That the Greekes and Latines more rarely called the Table of the Lord an Altar then a Table Which they would not have done had Altar caried in in it the true and absolute property of an Altar using therein the same liberty as they used to doe in applying the name Altar to Gods people and to a Christian mans faith and heart And both before and after he shewes l. 6. c. 3. p. 417. 418. 419. c. 5. p. 461. 462. 463. 464. That the Fathers generally call Christ our Altar placing him as our true Altar only in Heaven which he proves by Irenaeus l. 4. c. 34. Nazianzen Orat. 28. Ambrose Com in Hebr. 10. with other Fathers But here in the beginning of this addition he is made to approve both the name the having use and situation of Altars in our Church and of Priests too From which he is so farre That in the beginning of this very Section before the addition he writes in this maner Your Cardinall his objection is this That Preist Altar Sacrifice are Relatives and have mutuall unseperable dependance one of each other So he and that truely
Priest Altar doe notwithstaÌ„ding alledge the word Altar in the text to the Hebrews for proofe of a proper Altar in the Masse Will you be contented to permit the decision of this point to the judgement of your Jesuite â—stius Estius Comment in 13. ad Hebr. Habemus Altare Thomas Altare his interpretatur Câ—uâ—m Christs â—l iâ—sum Christum de quo edere inquit est fructum passionis percipere ipsi tanquam Capiti incorporari Crucem Christi prâ—prie vocari Altare nulla dubitatio est Vnde Ecelesia â—â—cat Aâ—am Cruâ—is Arbitror Expositionem Thoma magis esse Germanam quam innuit Apostolus cum paulo post dicit Iesum extra pâ—rtam passum esse ire in ara Crucis obiatum Vt taceam quod toties in hae Epistola atquâ— ex institute per Antithesâ—m comparat Sacerdotem ministrantem Tabernaculâ— cum Christe â—â—ipsum offerente Cruoem Sane cum nullam facere voluerit mentieâ—â—m Sacrificâ—â— incruenti nonae legis non multum verisimile est eum 〈◊〉 aliud agentem velut ex abrupto noluisse de Sacrificiâ— incru 〈◊〉 Sermonem jungere Sed potius cruenti in Cruce oblate memoriam ex antedictis remeare huâ— pertines quod Corpus Christ in Cruce oblatum Panis vocatur fide manducandus Vt Ioh. 6 Pâ—nis quem â—gâ— dabe Hee adhereth to the Jnterpretation of Aquinas which is that here by Altar is meant the Crosse of Christs sufferings Which hee collecteth out of the text of the Apostle wherâ— he saith of the Oblation of Christs Passion that it was with out the gate and observeth for confirmation-sake that thâ— Apostle often of purpose opposeth the Sacrifice of Chriâ—â— upon the Crosse to the bloody Sacrifice of the Old Testaâ—ment so farre as never to make mention of the Sacrificâ— of the New Testrment So hee what is if this be not ouâ— Protestantiall profession concerning this word Altar tâ— prove it to be taken improperly for the Altar of Christâ— Crosse And not for your pretended proper Altar of the Masse But we are cited to consult with the auncient Fathers be it so if then we shall demaund where our High-Priest Christ Iesus is to whom a man in fasting must repaire Origâ—n resolveth us saying He is not to be sought here on Earth at all but in Heaven Origen Iejunans debes adire Pontificem tnum Christum qui vtiquâ— non in terris quaerendus est sed in Coelis Et per ipsum debes offerre Hestiam Deo In Levit. c. 16. Hom. 10. If a Bishop be so utterly hindred by persecution that he cannot partake of any Sacramentall Altar on Earth Gregory Nazianzen will fortifie him as he did himselfe saying I have another Altar in Heaven whereof these Altars are but Signes A better Altar to be beholden with the eyes of my mind there will J offer up my Oblations Gregor Nazianzen Si ab his Altaribus me arcebunt ut aliud habeo cujus figurae sunt ea quae nec oculis â—ernimus super quod nec ascia neo manus aseendaâ— nec ullum Artificum instrumentum auditum est sed mentis totum hec opus est buic quae per contemplationem estabo in hec gratum immolabe Sacrificium Oblationes Holocausta tanto praestantiora quanio veriâ—as ambraÌ„ Orat. 28. p. 484. As great a difference doubtlesse as between Signes and things c. For your better apprehension of this truth if you will be pleased to observe that Christ in the time of the first Institution and Celebration of this Sacrament propounded it in the place where he with his Disciples gave it unto them to be Eaten and Drunken Then tell us where it was ever knowne that any Altar was ordained for Eating and Drinking In Gods Booke we finde Levit. 9. that the Priests themselves were not permitted to eate their Oblation on but besides the Altar Neither may you thinke it any Derogation to this Sacrament that the place whereon it is Celebrated is not called an Altar of the Lord seeing the Spirit of God by his Apostle hath dignified it with as equivalent Attributes For the Apostle as he called this Sacred Banquet purposely The Supper of the Lord the vessel prepared for the Liquid The Cup of the Lord So did he name the place whereon it was set The Table of the Lord and the contemners thereof Guilty of the Body and Bloud of the Lord And thereupon did denounce the vengeance Plague which fell upon prophane Communicants the judgement of the Lord and all these in one Chapter 1. Cor. 11. Thus this learned Bishop point-blanke against Pocklington Shelford Reeve the Colier who in the point of Altars and wresting of Hebr. 13. 10. to materiall Altars or Lords-Tables are more Popish then the very Iesuites and Papists themselves who as the Bishop here proves disclaime this most grosse sottish interpretation of the text I wonder therefore of the strong impudencie of those two Apostates Bray Baker very zealous Puritans and eager men heretofore against Altars Images bowing to Altars or the name of Jesus Images Sacrifices Sabbath-breaking c. but now are hote against them since Bishops Chaplaines as eager against them when they were Lecturers who dare license such Popish trash in direct opposition to Bishop Iewell yea Bishop Morton printed but one yeare before by publike license And more I marvell at the carelesnes of their two great Lord Prelates who permit them thus to doe without controll But perchance their Bishops may here be pardoned because they are so wholly taken up with the world and wordly affaires belonging not to their functions that they have no time at all to thinke of God Religion or any part of their Episcopall function so suffer their Chaplaines to doe what they please Who deserve a Tiburne-Tippet in stead of a Deanery or Bishopricke which they gape after for their paines in licensing such Romish Pamphlets at these in publike affront not only to the Articles Homilies most eminent writers and establishâ—d Doctrine of our Church but even of his Majesties most religious Declarations both before the 39. Articles and after the last Parliaments dissolution and the eternall infamie scandall of our Church which they cannot expiare with their lives Well how ever they brave it out for the present a time of reckoning I hope will come ere long to ease our Church of such viperous Apostates the mildest tearme that charity itselfe if regulated by truth can give them for their treacherie in setting not only their licenses but names also to such Bookes as these which act plainly manifests that having so loÌ„g maintained the Arminian Doctrine of the Apostasie of the Saints that themselves are both turned Apostates to make good their Doctrine by practise and example But of this enough Only let me conclude of them the new English Priests Altar-Patrons in the words of old Gildas who thus Caracterizeth them Sacerdotes habet Britania sed insipientes quam